Here is what my program does... and doesn't do...

by (Login The-Universe)
Admin

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+.

Posted on Jul 11, 2009, 3:06 PM

Respond to this message   

Return to Index


Response TitleAuthor and Date
Tiny C compilerqbguy 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