From: | David McMinn |
Date: | 3 Jun 2001 at 12:18:20 |
Subject: | Re: slightly ot - re: blitz basic |
--- In amigactive@y..., Peter Gordon <mrtickle@a...> wrote:
> > theres a pc blitz basic - **sigh**
>
> > if only amiga would hire them to write a tao version for amiga one/
>
> Why? Blitz Basic is horrible. People who like it are people who have struggled
> through and got used to its quirks, it is not an instantly usable language.
Of course it's instantly useable, although I agree there are a few quirks you
need to watch out for, but it's not like everything you do has to be worked round.
Hmm, maybe not /instantly/ useable, cos the manual sucks, but it's as simple
to use as any other Basic.
> Perhaps a whole new BASIC implementation would be a better idea... Blitz (on
> the amiga at least) is buggy, quirky, inconsistant, generates awful code (so
> its best to use as much assembler as possible), ...
It's not the language itself thats buggy, it's the 3rd party libraries. Just
the same as if you were using bugged shared libs. Would you blame that on your
assembler? Awful code, probably. It's slow because there was never an optimiser
and it can only generate 68000 code. Inconsistency is again mostly due
to the 3rd party libraries, all the ones written by the Blitz creators followed
a pretty similar structure.
However, if anyone is looking for a good basic, get PureBasic. It solves most
of the problems you mention about Blitz. And it is completely new, and
multiplatform (Amiga, Windows, Linux). Fred Laboureur has said he'd check if
making an OS4 version was worthwhile too. http://www.purebasic.com.
>From all accounts, BlitzPC is supposed to be really good, although I've never
tried it myself. I think Mark Sibly was considering a Linux port after finishing
the Windows version.
Quote carefully and read all ADMIN:README mails
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/