home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!ftpbox!mothost!white!rtsg.mot.com!lido16!wiegand
- From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
- Subject: Re: Which is faster Qbasic or GWBasic
- Message-ID: <wiegand.715372264@lido16>
- Sender: news@rtsg.mot.com
- Nntp-Posting-Host: lido16
- Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
- Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
- References: <1992Sep1.144223.27874@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:31:04 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
- cwatters@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Coyt D Watters) writes:
-
- >That's pretty much the question. Is QBASIC (supplied with DOS 5.x) faster
- >than the equivalent GWBASIC program?
-
- >Before some joker jumps in a tells me I should use a "real language" like
- >C or Pascal:
-
- >I am porting a large collection of programs written for the Commodore 64
- >(the best low budget computer ever invented) in BASIC to the PC. I have
- >time to do some minor conversion, but not complete rewrite.
-
- >Since I have both BASICS, I want to use the faster one - I don't need all
- >the QBASIC bells and whistles (like mouse support and the new editor).
-
- >Email or Postings gladly accepted.
- >-Coyt
-
- Someone please correct me if i'm wrong - but I believe Qbasic is compiled
- while GWbasic is interpreted. This would make Qbasic much faster.
- It also means that once you compile the programs you don't need Qbasic
- to run them.
-
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
- uunet!motcid!wiegand
- Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
-