RE: [ql-users] QLiberator
This was not an attack of Turbo, just my experience. With older versions you need to carefully look to all parameters passed to PROCs because behavior is not the same as SBasic. And I think Linker+ QD+Sbasic thing+Qlib is still a very good developpment tool thanks to good work of Wolgang and Jochen. But I understand Turbo is up todate and is intended to be new standard for compiled Sbasic Claude -Message d'origine- De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de [EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoye : jeudi 12 fevrier 2004 22:04 A : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : Re: [ql-users] QLiberator On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:36:44 +0100, Claude Mourier 00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because it is far more easy to use then Turbo : you have can compile your code directly when you need to adapt it with Turbo (at least versions I know) That is not true. You do not need to adapt any code apart from what you would normally do with any compiler. You cannot use SAVE and LOAD etc but you cannot do that in QLiberator anyway. As for Turbo directives like IMPLICIT etc. these are optional. There's nothing that says that you HAVE to use them. And Qlib is the only one implemented as Thing in QD (you can parse and compile without line number) and used by tool like the Linker. (and I don't know if all features such as overlays etc is supported in Turbo). That's not really an advantage, compared to the speed, superior math libraries and availability of Turbo. But it's true that Qlib as some limitation due to is status (no more developpped) and (good) work made around Turbo is a good news (my intention is not to critic this work). Turbo updates come in days once a feature is requested or a bug spotted. When I first encountered the BLOCK high-colour bug (Turbo would not assign GD2 colour values to blocks) it took George about half a day to fix it. Since Q-Liberator is not being developed any more (based on what you said as I do not know anything about it, only used it once at a friend's QL; never liked it anyway :-) I think that the choice is obvious. Phoebus -- Visit the QL-FAQ at: http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/faq/ (Still uploading stuff!) Visit the uQLX-win32 homepage at: http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/uqlx.html Visit the uQLX-mac home page at:http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/uqlxmac.html
Re: [ql-users] QLiberator
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:36:44 +0100, Claude Mourier 00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because it is far more easy to use then Turbo : you have can compile your code directly when you need to adapt it with Turbo (at least versions I know) That is not true. You do not need to adapt any code apart from what you would normally do with any compiler. You cannot use SAVE and LOAD etc but you cannot do that in QLiberator anyway. As for Turbo directives like IMPLICIT etc. these are optional. There's nothing that says that you HAVE to use them. And Qlib is the only one implemented as Thing in QD (you can parse and compile without line number) and used by tool like the Linker. (and I don't know if all features such as overlays etc is supported in Turbo). That's not really an advantage, compared to the speed, superior math libraries and availability of Turbo. But it's true that Qlib as some limitation due to is status (no more developpped) and (good) work made around Turbo is a good news (my intention is not to critic this work). Turbo updates come in days once a feature is requested or a bug spotted. When I first encountered the BLOCK high-colour bug (Turbo would not assign GD2 colour values to blocks) it took George about half a day to fix it. Since Q-Liberator is not being developed any more (based on what you said as I do not know anything about it, only used it once at a friend's QL; never liked it anyway :-) I think that the choice is obvious. Phoebus -- Visit the QL-FAQ at: http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/faq/ (Still uploading stuff!) Visit the uQLX-win32 homepage at: http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/uqlx.html Visit the uQLX-mac home page at:http://www.dokos-gr.net/ql/uqlxmac.html
RE: [ql-users] QLiberator
Because it is far more easy to use then Turbo : you have can compile your code directly when you need to adapt it with Turbo (at least versions I know) And Qlib is the only one implemented as Thing in QD (you can parse and compile without line number) and used by tool like the Linker. (and I don't know if all features such as overlays etc is supported in Turbo). But it's true that Qlib as some limitation due to is status (no more developpped) and (good) work made around Turbo is a good news (my intention is not to critic this work). Claude Phoebus (But why would anyone want to get Q-Liberator when Turbo is free, twice as fast, plus now it can incorporate extensions in the executable. We should know as Q-Word is done this way thanks to George Gwilt). Turbo IMHO was always a superior product and with TurboPTR you can build all the Pointer programs that your heart desires.
Re: [ql-users] QLiberator
On 10 Feb 2004 at 20:31, Timothy Swenson wrote: With all honesty, I find Qlib to be an easier compiler to use. Now, both have their problem compared to a real compiler like C68. Both require you to LOAD the program into SBASIC. This is, actually, not quite true. QLIB requires the program to exist in Qsaved i.e. tokenised form on a disk. It then loads compiles that. There are ways to get a program tokenised without the need for Basic: A program such as the Basic Linker (plug, plug) uses this and sometimes doesn't even load the program into Basic as it can use an external (supplied) parser which takes a Basic program as input file and outputs the tokenised program. (actually, if the Basic Linker runs on an smsq/e machine, it does load the program into an sbasic and then forces that to QSAVE the program, it only uses the external parser if there is no Sbasic). This allows me to write the code in modules and without line number - the modules are linked together by the basic linker. Sorry if this sounds like a blatant advertisement. Wolfgang
Re: [ql-users] QLiberator
In a message dated 11/02/2004 10:28:32 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks for your info.I am now only waiting for Price etc before getting back to the member whomade the query.I will pass on your very valid comments regarding Turbo/QLib but just at themoment I am answering some specific questions.Thanks for your help. A quick look at QL Today shows latest Qlib is £50 from QBranch (the last version was v3.36 as far as I know). --Rich Mellor RWAP Services35 Chantry Croft, Kinsley, Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF9 5JHTEL: 01977 610509Visit our website at URL:http://www.rwapsoftware.co.ukStuck with ordinary dial up internet connection ?? Read our review of internet accelerators and broadband at:URL:http://members.aol.com/RWAPSoftware/reviews.html
Re: [ql-users] QLiberator
Excellent work George!! Its just the incentive I need to really get into TurboPTR. Malcolm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 11/02/04 01:16:30 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (But why would anyone want to get Q-Liberator when Turbo is free, twice as fast, plus now it can incorporate extensions in the executable. We should know as Q-Word is done this way thanks to George Gwilt). Turbo IMHO was always a superior product and with TurboPTR you can build all the Pointer programs that your heart desires. Thanks for the plug!! Actually the latest version of TurboPTR, which includes all the new colours and the nice advances in the new WMAN should be on the SQLUG site at the weekend. George
Re: [ql-users] QLiberator
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], thegilpins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Hi, I'm being asked about the latest on QLiberator (latest version, where it's available from, how much, what does it (not) work with, etc.) Can anybody help me please? John Gilpin. It has not been updated for a long time. I have one copy left for sale. It seems to work well with SMSQ/E what else do you need to know? -- Roy Wood Q Branch. 20 Locks Hill, Portslade, Sussex. Tel: +44 (0) 1273 386030fax: +44 (0) 1273 430501 web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk
Re: [ql-users] QLiberator
At 08:14 PM 2/10/2004 -0500, you wrote: (But why would anyone want to get Q-Liberator when Turbo is free, twice as fast, plus now it can incorporate extensions in the executable. We should know as Q-Word is done this way thanks to George Gwilt). Turbo IMHO was always a superior product and with TurboPTR you can build all the Pointer programs that your heart desires. With all honesty, I find Qlib to be an easier compiler to use. Now, both have their problem compared to a real compiler like C68. Both require you to LOAD the program into SBASIC. When I use Structured SuperBasic (which allows me to program with no line numbers). Qlib does the linking in of Config blocks using a few preprocessor commands. Turbo requires the use of T_CONFIG program and Turbo with TurboPTR requires the use of line numbers and data statements. Now, I have not used Qlib in a while and will alter my programming style to use Turbo, but it's kind of like changing from a QWERTY keyboard to a Dvorak keyboard. I now favor Turbo because it is 100% freeware and pretty much open source. Tim Swenson
