Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!seismo!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!brown
From: brown@nicmad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc
Subject: Re: New version of Basic Compiler?
Message-ID: <777@nicmad.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Jul-86 23:28:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: nicmad.777
Posted: Mon Jul 14 23:28:08 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Jul-86 04:56:10 EDT
References: <614@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU>
Reply-To: brown@nicmad.UUCP (Mr. Video)
Organization: Nicolet Instrument Corp. Madison WI
Lines: 27
Keywords: Basic Compiler, Random Number Generation

In article <614@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> hsgj@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Dan Green) writes:
>
>   I have the IBM Basic Compiler, which is pretty nice.  When I run it
>it says "Version 1.0, copyright 1982" and the Link program is copyright
>1982 and Version 1.1.
>   I have seen people on net.micro.pc talk about a Bascom Version 2.0.
>My question is, what difference is there between the two versions?
>Ok, ok, obviously it is better, or IBM wouldn't have bothered to upgrade
>it.  But I am wondering what, if anything is significantly changed?
>Is the resultant .EXE smaller, or faster, or what?

All kinds of nice goodies have been added.  The major one being that complete
DOS paths are now supported.  If I remember correctly, the 2.01 compiler is
equal to the BASICA of PC-DOS 3.10.

But, Microsoft has just announced the release of QuickBASIC 2.0, which has
a built in editor, debugging, BASICA compatibility and a few other things,
all for the same 1.0 price of $99.00.  It beats the price of IBM.  Besides,
the upgrade period to go from IBM 1.0 to 2.0 has expired and Microsoft's
version is cheaper.
-- 

		  ihnp4------\
		harvard-\     \
Mr. Video	   seismo!uwvax!nicmad!brown
		  topaz-/     /
		 decvax------/