Arne wrote:To some degree I would say: Depends on what you want to do.
I started with CBM BASIC, later GfA Basic. Was nice. One day I wanted to compile my GfA program that was running fine in the interpreter. It compiled without errors but when I double clicked the compiled PRG it bombed out. That day I dropped BASIC at all - except for very, very small tools that usually don't see the light of the next day when they did what I expected.
IMHO it is much more difficult to write modular code in BASIC than in C/Pascal/Modula2. Currently I stick to C and Assembler on Atari or Delphi on th PC. In the company I work for we use C/ASM for the embedded projects, too. But C/ASM got a steep learning curve of course.
Just my 2ct and other people surely have better experiences with different BASIC flavours
FedePede04 wrote:i would say on the ST, and if you have to learn a new language, why not Assembler, it is not much harder, a little more work but you also get a good speed increase
mpattonm wrote:lp wrote:... A little over 256 new commands.
Now this is a but off topic, but is there a documented and working way to put GFA Basic on cartridge? Or Micron perhaps? Just for fun, not for serious coding.
darklight wrote:Boo hiss! STOS is amazing, and if you are looking at writing games, then I'm sure the library of extensions for STOS will blow away anything available for GFA. However I'll concede that the editor & support for GFA will be much better.
I believe the best resource for STOS nowdays is [Exxo's STOS pages](https://www.exxoshost.co.uk/atari/STOS_index.htm)
darklight wrote:What you said is absolutely true. There are though two major problems with stos. Line numbers and performance.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests