It does run in QuickBasic.
It doesn't run in QB64. I've always been very impressed by how fast QuickBasic compiles executible programs. It can do 200K in a matter of seconds. C compilers do take longer, but I have never had to wait 45 minutes to an hour, ever. Of course, Ive compiled much smaller C program, probably no more than 40K and those usually took about 1 to 2 minutes. It would be great if the compiler could return why the compilation failed and give the label or line number. Not having a clue is like looking for a needle in a stack space. Another frustration is I don't know if I'm close to getting a working program or 100 miles away. With no indocation of what is going wrong, it might be a day to get it working or a month. Lately, I'm getting away from problems that do not offer a reliable estimated time of resolution. Pete PS: The program is an organizer and yes, it does have a lot of variables, I'd estimate around 200+. |
| Response Title | Author and Date |
| Tiny C compiler | qbguy on Jul 11 |
| * I agree 100%! We need those error lines or some kind of clue. | on Jul 11 |
| Well, maybe Galleon will consider that as a request... | on Jul 11 |
| Galleon needs some help. There are a lot of distractions! | on Jul 11 |
| I'd made my first graphics program, grass growing... | on Jul 11 |
| Why would a finished QB64 compiler would make BASIC popular again? | Anonymous on Jul 12 |
| * Well, I'm not gonna tell ya either dummy but FB is a joke! | on Jul 12 |
| RE: Why would a finished QB64 compiler make BASIC popular again? | on Jul 13 |
| Well, at least it is 16-bit in QBASIC "mode" | qbguy on Jul 13 |
| Re: RE: Why would a finished QB64 compiler make BASIC popular again? | on Jul 13 |