Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!van-bc!root
From: lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Compiled BASIC recommendations needed
Message-ID: <2437@van-bc.UUCP>
Date: 23 May 89 16:35:53 GMT
Sender: usenet@van-bc.UUCP
Lines: 30

In <476@nadia.UUCP>, agnus@nadia.UUCP (Matthias Zepf) writes:
>GFA Basic is a very good product. It isn't a basic compiler, but it is
>fast like one. The running speed is in some cases faster than the speed
>of programs written in Aztec or Lattice C. The syntax of GFA Basic is
>not compatible with Basica/GW-Basic/AmigaBasic but GFA Basic has it
>own very fast editor with syntax checking an automatically structured
>programming. It needs only one look at GFA Basic to see that it is the
>BEST basic one can get!

Does GFA basic allow you to use another editor/environment or does it force you
into theirs? I don't mind integrated environments, as long as they are the ones
I choose to have.

I don't use Basic as a rule, and would rather that any program I write (or that
anyone else writes and I find useful), be standalone, so that I don't have to
carry the baggage of the interpreter. If I used Basic more, I would probably
not mind (like with ARexx, which is called for at least 25% of all commands I
type)

I guess 'best' is relative to your own needs, nicht wahr?

-larry

--
  - Don't tell me what kind of a day to have! -
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
|   //   Larry Phillips                                                |
| \X/    lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca or uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips  |
|        COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322                                        |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+