From: X-Bios Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic,comp.lang.basic.misc,comp.os.msdos.djgpp,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.msdos.misc Subject: Re: OmniBasic Announcement Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 00:00:09 -0600 Organization: ReactiveWare Software Inc Message-ID: <338926E9.239A@hotmail.com> References: <3385F0D6 DOT 1DCE AT vax2 DOT rainis DOT net> <3387D4FD DOT 303D AT hotmail DOT com> <33889968 DOT 4148 AT vax2 DOT rainis DOT net> Reply-To: XBios AT hotmail DOT com NNTP-Posting-Host: provo-0120.vii.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 145 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Precedence: bulk Michael L. Smith wrote: > > HAHA. OmniBasic claims "OmniBasic is the ONLY truly portable BASIC > > compiler in the world!" > > If that isn't the biggest pile... Look: > > Looks like an advanced case of cranial rectosis! Reference the excerpts > from the GFA FAQ below. > > First: It does NOT mention OS/2 as a ported platform The GFA faq you mention must be prety old, or for the Atari only. Here's an excerpt from my GFA manual: GFA-BASIC PC is, at this time, available for IBM compatible PCs under four operating syatems: GFA-BASIC for MS-DOS GFA-BASIC for Windows GFA-BASIC for OS/2 GFA-BASIX for SCO (a different section) Dirk van Assche took over the porting of already written code to the Windows and OS/2 operating systems. (a different section) The MS-DOS version has some 500, the Windows version about 800, the OS/2 version roughly 1000, and the UNIX version about 900 commands and functions. I think that's ample proof for GFA's OS/2 port. > > Second: It mentions 'syntactic vaiations' This is called NOT portable! GFA's quite portable. Sure there are some OS-specific commands, but the bulk of the langiage is portable. An example would be (my favorite) the XBIOS() function available only on the Atari. > > Third: It states that is is not sopported (at least in some cases) Huh? Try cleaning that up and ask again. > > Fourth: There are warnings in the FAQ (not reproduced here) that some > statements will not work in the compiled mode on some platforms...read > the FAQ for yourself. This is called NOT portable. Portability has nothing to do with the relationship between a language and it's compiler. Please. Tell us which statements won't work when compiled? I'm an EXPERIANCED GFA-BASIC programmer and NEVER have I had a command not work when compiled. And ofcorse, GFA-BASIC doesn't produce executable code for things like STACKSIZE as they only effect a compiled program. > > Fifth: OmniBasic is C output and is written in itself. This means it can > be ported to AND platform in a matter of hours... especially if the > target platform supports gcc. Oh please. Is "being written in C" a feature when it comes down to speed? ALL of GFA's executive parts are written in ASM, and as it makes little difference what OS you use (as long as it's the same processor family) the ASM will work. GFA's IDE and compiler were written in C++, so ports of the IDE could be done in a matter of hours aswell. > > Sixth: When we say portable, we mean the source code will compile > correctly and run correctly on ANY supported platform WITH NO > MODIFICATION WHATSOEVER! Ok. Then you limit your number of commands by doing that. After all, how can a "truly" portable language support features from all of it's platforms regaurdless of the platform you are using (ie. Windows managment while in DOS). GFA has expanded it's syntax to cover as much of an operating systems features as possible. Call that non-portable? Fine. It is in a way, but it also makes the language more powerful. BTW: Have you even done serious coding in GFA? You don't seem to know anything more than what you read in that outdated, NON-OFFICAL, FAQ. > > > > OmniBasic: Linux, MS-DOS, OS/2, OS-9000, OS9/68000, and OS9/68020 > > GFA-BASIC: UNIX, MS-DOS, OS/2, Windows, Atari, Amiga > > > > And some of Omni's platforms are just about the same, just for different > > computers. Lame... > > And just what do you think different computers are if not different > platforms? It's true, GFA has no Mac port. Who cares tho. GFA exists for those 3 different families of computers (Intel, Atari, and Amiga). Isn't that multi-platform? Even if 2 of 'em aren't popular anymore. > > Q: Which other platforms does GFA BASIC exist for? > > A: Apart from Atari, there was GFA BASIC for Amiga (v 3.0), MSDOS > (286, 386, 486), and Windows 3.1. And OS/2 and UNIX, soon Win95/NT. And GFA has "special-case" code for 8086 through 486 processors. > > Excepts from GFA FAQ: > > Q: Is GFA BASIC still supported? > > A: That depends ;) Officially, no, not for the Atari. There are > however many knowledgable people who (still) > regularily code in GFA BASIC, and help can often be found on the > comp.sys.atari.programmer newsgroup, or > in other network echo areas, such as NEST's N.ST.PROG.GFA. Q: Is > GFA BASIC still supported? Like I say, this FAQ (I believe that I have read it, and disguarded it because it's mainly about the Atari) is OLD. > > Q: Can GFA BASIC source be moved between platforms? > > A: Again, yes, if this is done in *.LST format. The program > structure and general commands will be the same, with perhaps a > few syntactic variations. Ah. Here is that famous quote. I believe this to be a kind of "back-up" so the author couldn't be called a fool. All of the non-platform specific commands have been the same since the Atari, as stated below. > > Since the PC (and Amiga) have different operating systems, most > of the system specific calls (GEM, VDI, AES) will have to be > rewritten in the importing interpreter, often as procedure > extensions. However, the BIOS and XBIOS calls of the Atari are > largely DOS-based, and so most of these will be unchanged and > work fine. -- X-Bios