Re: Liberty BASIC Booster

From	H-Man <Spam@bites.fs>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.basic.misc, alt.lang.basic
Subject	Re: Liberty BASIC Booster
Date	2011-09-12 16:08 -0600
Organization	L&H Custom Computer
Message-ID	<j4lvtd$his$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<781e639f-6931-4910-ab8e-14d0331ae358@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <29068e4e-b004-4984-bdf9-477574f4818e@k29g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> <j4lg62$v63$1@dont-email.me> <c1d50bc0-bc37-4571-af61-f99e58c31426@fe21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:45:12 -0700 (PDT), news@rtrussell.co.uk wrote:

> On Sep 12, 6:40 pm, H-Man <S...@bites.fs> wrote:
>> As BBC will compile to native x86 executable code,
> 
> If only!  BBC BASIC is interpreted (and there are features of the
> language which make it virtually impossible to compile) so the speed
> isn't that much greater than when running interactively under the IDE.
> 
>> As Richard champions his BBC Basic product, this is a great way to get
>> Liberty Basic programmers to migrate to what could arguably be called a
>> more powerful programming language.
> 
> Honestly, it's not.  If that had been the motivation I would have made
> a LB to BBC translator, which then required the user to obtain BBC
> BASIC in order to run the program.  In contrast, LBB is completely
> self-contained; it even creates stand-alone executables without it
> even being apparent that BBC BASIC is at work 'under the hood'.
> 
> LBB is a perfectly genuine attempt to improve the lot of Liberty BASIC
> programmers.  Yes, it acts as a showcase for what BBC BASIC can
> achieve but it's not trying to 'convert' anybody.  For more background
> you can read my blog post:
> 
>  http://bbcbasic.blogspot.com/
> 
> Richard.
> http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/

Okay, thanks Richard. I completely misunderstood what was indicated on the 
website.
From your website
"The full version allows you to create a compact (typically less than 100K) 
stand-alone executable (.EXE) file from your BASIC program, which will run 
without BBC BASIC having to be installed and without the need for any 
special DLLs. You can distribute such executables freely without any 
royalty for BBC BASIC being due. "

I assumed, therefore that it was not runtime dependent. Looking into this 
further everything i see does say it is interpreted so I'm assuning the 
runtime is part of the self contained .exe.

From your Blog I found;
"This is where we complete the circle. By combining the translation 
capabilities of LB2BBC with the emulation capabilities of LBLIB it becomes 
possible to run most Liberty BASIC programs, without actually needing 
Liberty BASIC itself! In consultation with some leading Liberty BASIC 
advocates it became clear that there might be a market for this, not as as 
translator to BBC BASIC but as a 'Liberty BASIC Booster'. To the user it 
would appear as a way to speed up LB programs (up to ten times in some 
cases) and to create compact single-file executables, without it being 
obviously apparant that BBC BASIC was at work 'under the hood'."

So then, is this a better LB compiler, and is that it's purpose? Does the 
LB code run under BBC then? Very cool, but without knowing LB and the 
limitations you speak of, I'm not sure I get it.

-- 
HK

Back to comp.lang.basic.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

[ANN] Liberty BASIC Booster "news@rtrussell.co.uk" <news@rtrussell.co.uk> - 2011-09-11 02:38 -0700
  Re: Liberty BASIC Booster aury <aurelw.wiz@gmail.com> - 2011-09-12 10:18 -0700
    Re: Liberty BASIC Booster H-Man <Spam@bites.fs> - 2011-09-12 11:40 -0600
      Re: Liberty BASIC Booster "news@rtrussell.co.uk" <news@rtrussell.co.uk> - 2011-09-12 13:45 -0700
        Re: Liberty BASIC Booster H-Man <Spam@bites.fs> - 2011-09-12 16:02 -0600
          Re: Liberty BASIC Booster "news@rtrussell.co.uk" <news@rtrussell.co.uk> - 2011-09-13 02:42 -0700
            Re: Liberty BASIC Booster H-Man <Spam@bites.fs> - 2011-09-13 08:18 -0600
        Re: Liberty BASIC Booster H-Man <Spam@bites.fs> - 2011-09-12 16:08 -0600
          Re: Liberty BASIC Booster H-Man <Spam@bites.fs> - 2011-09-13 08:20 -0600
            Re: Liberty BASIC Booster Tony Toews <ttoews@telusplanet.net> - 2011-09-13 18:03 -0600
              Re: Liberty BASIC Booster H-Man <Spam@bites.fs> - 2011-09-14 10:25 -0600
        Re: Liberty BASIC Booster H-Man <Spam@bites.fs> - 2011-09-12 16:04 -0600
  Re: [ANN] Liberty BASIC Booster "Gordon Rahman" <grahman@planet.nl> - 2011-09-20 21:57 +0200
    Re: Liberty BASIC Booster "news@rtrussell.co.uk" <news@rtrussell.co.uk> - 2011-09-20 14:19 -0700
      Re: Liberty BASIC Booster "Gordon Rahman" <grahman@planet.nl> - 2011-09-21 00:12 +0200
        Re: Liberty BASIC Booster aury <aurelw.wiz@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 00:40 -0700
          Re: Liberty BASIC Booster "news@rtrussell.co.uk" <news@rtrussell.co.uk> - 2011-09-24 04:33 -0700
            Re: Liberty BASIC Booster "news@rtrussell.co.uk" <news@rtrussell.co.uk> - 2011-10-01 03:07 -0700
              Re: Liberty BASIC Booster "news@rtrussell.co.uk" <news@rtrussell.co.uk> - 2011-10-08 01:41 -0700
                Re: Liberty BASIC Booster "news@rtrussell.co.uk" <news@rtrussell.co.uk> - 2011-10-15 07:18 -0700
                Re: Liberty BASIC Booster "news@rtrussell.co.uk" <news@rtrussell.co.uk> - 2011-10-22 07:42 -0700
                Re: Liberty BASIC Booster "news@rtrussell.co.uk" <news@rtrussell.co.uk> - 2011-11-05 07:04 -0700
                Re: Liberty BASIC Booster "news@rtrussell.co.uk" <news@rtrussell.co.uk> - 2011-11-12 08:43 -0800
                Re: Liberty BASIC Booster "news@rtrussell.co.uk" <news@rtrussell.co.uk> - 2011-11-19 04:40 -0800
                Re: Liberty BASIC Booster "news@rtrussell.co.uk" <news@rtrussell.co.uk> - 2011-12-19 06:00 -0800
                Re: Liberty BASIC Booster Hector Alfaro <alfaropas@ceropublicidad.com> - 2011-12-20 15:03 -0430
                Re: Liberty BASIC Booster "news@rtrussell.co.uk" <news@rtrussell.co.uk> - 2011-12-24 09:55 -0800
                Re: Liberty BASIC Booster "news@rtrussell.co.uk" <news@rtrussell.co.uk> - 2012-01-06 14:31 -0800
                Re: Liberty BASIC Booster "news@rtrussell.co.uk" <news@rtrussell.co.uk> - 2012-01-14 08:34 -0800
                Re: Liberty BASIC Booster "news@rtrussell.co.uk" <news@rtrussell.co.uk> - 2012-01-29 10:19 -0800
                Re: Liberty BASIC Booster "news@rtrussell.co.uk" <news@rtrussell.co.uk> - 2012-02-24 07:08 -0800
                Re: Liberty BASIC Booster Hector Alfaro <alfaropas@ceropublicidad.com> - 2012-03-05 09:46 -0430
                Re: Liberty BASIC Booster "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2012-03-06 15:44 +0000
                Re: Liberty BASIC Booster Hector Alfaro <alfaropas@ceropublicidad.com> - 2012-03-06 21:40 -0430
                Re: Liberty BASIC Booster "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2012-03-07 02:35 +0000
                Re: Liberty BASIC Booster "news@rtrussell.co.uk" <news@rtrussell.co.uk> - 2012-03-07 02:16 -0800
                Re: Liberty BASIC Booster ArarghMail202NOSPAM@NOT.AT.Arargh.com - 2012-03-09 18:54 -0600
                Re: Liberty BASIC Booster "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2012-03-10 08:02 +0000
                Re: Liberty BASIC Booster Hector Alfaro <alfaropas@ceropublicidad.com> - 2011-12-20 16:49 -0430

csiph-web