On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 3:25:55 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:22:20 GMT, gree...@gmail.com wrote:

> >Do you really need to compile your Qbasic programs? Any computer that's still breathing should be able to run interpreted faster
> >than you can blink.

Oddly enough, I cannot find the post to which you replied, so I have to use your quotation of it
to reply to it.

It is true that today's computers are quite fast.

However, if I have been lazy, and I wrote a program in BASIC to do something which
really should have been done in compiled FORTRAN... then it is indeed quite possible
that the extra speed of compiling the BASIC code will come in handy.

John Savard

On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:41:45 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 3:25:55 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:22:20 GMT, gree...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >Do you really need to compile your Qbasic programs? Any computer that's still breathing should be able to run interpreted faster
> > >than you can blink.
> Oddly enough, I cannot find the post to which you replied, so I have to use your quotation of it
> to reply to it.
>
> It is true that today's computers are quite fast.
>
> However, if I have been lazy, and I wrote a program in BASIC to do something which
> really should have been done in compiled FORTRAN... then it is indeed quite possible
> that the extra speed of compiling the BASIC code will come in handy.

Generally, modern machines will run interpreter QBASIC so fast that it will be adequate. But the compiled version, even the cheapo QB 4.5, still offered more features, was faster, and handled bigger programs and files. The professional 7.0 did even more.

Another advantage was that compiled programs could be shared with others. Of course, these days probably almost no one else could run them. And these days would anyone want to run DOS?

By the way, I haven't cranked up my Visual BASIC in a long time. Will that (Vers 4) run on a modern machine? Anyone use Visual BASIC?

On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 12:53:08 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:41:45 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 3:25:55 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> > On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:22:20 GMT, gree...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > >Do you really need to compile your Qbasic programs? Any computer that's still breathing should be able to run interpreted faster
>> > >than you can blink.
>> Oddly enough, I cannot find the post to which you replied, so I have to use your quotation of it
>> to reply to it.
>>
>> It is true that today's computers are quite fast.
>>
>> However, if I have been lazy, and I wrote a program in BASIC to do something which
>> really should have been done in compiled FORTRAN... then it is indeed quite possible
>> that the extra speed of compiling the BASIC code will come in handy.
>
>Generally, modern machines will run interpreter QBASIC so fast that it will be adequate. But the compiled version, even the cheapo QB 4.5, still offered more features, was faster, and handled bigger programs and files. The professional 7.0 did even more.
>
>Another advantage was that compiled programs could be shared with others. Of course, these days probably almost no one else could run them. And these days would anyone want to run DOS?
>
>By the way, I haven't cranked up my Visual BASIC in a long time. Will that (Vers 4) run on a modern machine? Anyone use Visual BASIC?

A pretty full implementation of Visual Basic is built into just about
everything in Microsoft Office with extensions appropriate to whatever
it's built into.

The current Visual Basic is free until you make something like a
hundred thousand dollars in product sales.
>
>
>

On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 9:34:22 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> The current Visual Basic is free until you make something like a
> hundred thousand dollars in product sales.

As it happens, I've just installed the free Visual Studio on my computer.

Having recently installed an Nvidia graphics card, temporarily replacing
the better (for gaming) Vega 56 that was there (not a new one; but
one from the soon-to-be-unsupported Kepler generation)...

I was very disappointed that Nvidia no longer makes the community
edition of the Windows version of the PGI Fortran compiler from its
web site. Having better tech and better software support (as opposed
to more raw power for basic gaming at the lowest price) is what Nvidia
is good at!

But apparently the Portland Group actually donated some of their source
to the Flang project (although classic Flang has been replaced with
something else that Nvidia wrote itself - if what Nvidia wrote itself was
better, why did they buy Portland Group???) and even if new Flang doesn't
generate code yet (although the page that said that appears to be out of
date) classic Flang did, and there's even a project to port it to Windows
(but I doubt it's gotten very far).

Still, I think Nvidia does make a free CUDA-capable C++ compiler available
(mainly for game development)... the Windows HPC package will be
available later, but there's this other thing I was able to download, and I
will try to review its contents... so I should still be able to access my 1.81
teraflops of FP64 goodness somehow.

John Savard

On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 11:34:22 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 12:53:08 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4
> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:41:45 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 3:25:55 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:22:20 GMT, gree...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > >Do you really need to compile your Qbasic programs? Any computer that's still breathing should be able to run interpreted faster
> >> > >than you can blink.
> >> Oddly enough, I cannot find the post to which you replied, so I have to use your quotation of it
> >> to reply to it.
> >>
> >> It is true that today's computers are quite fast.
> >>
> >> However, if I have been lazy, and I wrote a program in BASIC to do something which
> >> really should have been done in compiled FORTRAN... then it is indeed quite possible
> >> that the extra speed of compiling the BASIC code will come in handy.
> >
> >Generally, modern machines will run interpreter QBASIC so fast that it will be adequate. But the compiled version, even the cheapo QB 4.5, still offered more features, was faster, and handled bigger programs and files. The professional 7.0 did even more.
> >
> >Another advantage was that compiled programs could be shared with others.. Of course, these days probably almost no one else could run them. And these days would anyone want to run DOS?
> >
> >By the way, I haven't cranked up my Visual BASIC in a long time. Will that (Vers 4) run on a modern machine? Anyone use Visual BASIC?
> A pretty full implementation of Visual Basic is built into just about
> everything in Microsoft Office with extensions appropriate to whatever
> it's built into.
>
> The current Visual Basic is free until you make something like a
> hundred thousand dollars in product sales.

I haven't downloaded it, but apparently this is the source:
https://microsoft-visual-basic.en.softonic.com/

On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:48:47 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 11:34:22 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 12:53:08 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4
>> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 2:41:45 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> >> On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 3:25:55 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:22:20 GMT, gree...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > >Do you really need to compile your Qbasic programs? Any computer that's still breathing should be able to run interpreted faster
>> >> > >than you can blink.
>> >> Oddly enough, I cannot find the post to which you replied, so I have to use your quotation of it
>> >> to reply to it.
>> >>
>> >> It is true that today's computers are quite fast.
>> >>
>> >> However, if I have been lazy, and I wrote a program in BASIC to do something which
>> >> really should have been done in compiled FORTRAN... then it is indeed quite possible
>> >> that the extra speed of compiling the BASIC code will come in handy.
>> >
>> >Generally, modern machines will run interpreter QBASIC so fast that it will be adequate. But the compiled version, even the cheapo QB 4.5, still offered more features, was faster, and handled bigger programs and files. The professional 7.0 did even more.
>> >
>> >Another advantage was that compiled programs could be shared with others. Of course, these days probably almost no one else could run them. And these days would anyone want to run DOS?
>> >
>> >By the way, I haven't cranked up my Visual BASIC in a long time. Will that (Vers 4) run on a modern machine? Anyone use Visual BASIC?
>> A pretty full implementation of Visual Basic is built into just about
>> everything in Microsoft Office with extensions appropriate to whatever
>> it's built into.
>>
>> The current Visual Basic is free until you make something like a
>> hundred thousand dollars in product sales.
>
>I haven't downloaded it, but apparently this is the source:
>https://microsoft-visual-basic.en.softonic.com/

That's a source for _something_. Not something I would trust though.

Change directory to c:\windows\microsoft.net\framework then do a dir
/s vbc.exe and you should find it. There's also csc.exe which is a C#
compiler.

The recommended way to get it though is
<https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/> which gets you the current
versions of Visual Basic, C/C++, C#, and I forget what all else.

The one you want is "Community 2019".