Re: LZ: New TI-BASIC Compiler
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: LZ: New TI-BASIC Compiler
> Application written in Visual Basic (version 4 and earlier) and some other
> similar languages requires a DLL which is an interpreter. An example of a
> language that IS compiled is ZBASIC. It converts BASIC into assembly.
It converts ZBASIC into assembler; there is a difference.
> Then,
> you must use an ASSEMBLER, NOT a compiler, to turn that assembly language into
> machine language.
I'm quite aware of the difference between assemblers and compilers,
thank you. You may dispense with the capital letters.
>I'm not quite sure why you thought that I was saying
> assembly code was not human readable; I did not say that at all.
"Compilers for such programs as Visual Basic or QBasic are not really
compilers, they just convert the human-readable code into a simpler
format."
That's why. I read "QBasic", which is neither a compiler nor a "bastard"
compiler/interpreter. It is a truely interpreted language
> What you said
> a compiler does, is actually what an assembler does. They are two different
> things.
Compilers for such programs as Visual Basic or
> QBasic
> > are not really compilers, they just convert the human-readable code into a
> > simpler format. Visual Basic applications require a DLL in the
> Windows/System/
> > directory, which is actually a real-time interpreter. The reason is this,
> and
> > the TI-92's BASIC language is a very good example:
> >
>
> One comment....you've just defined a compiler. All compilers do is turn
> human-readable code (I'm assuming you're saying assembly isn't
> "human-readable" for some reason) into machine language (a simpler
> format).
Follow-Ups:
References: