Re: A "universal" computer language?

[Rick Tarara <rbtarara@SPRYNET.COM>]

Ludwik,

I don't know how old or what version of TrueBasic you are using, but I've
been using it for a decade now and it has always been a compiled language.
To be sure, there are separate versions for DOS, Windows, Macs, OS2, LINNUX,
even had one for the Amiga, but once compiled you have an .exe (or
equivalent) program that runs WITHOUT needing the TrueBasic development
package any longer.  All of the programs I offer are done using TrueBasic.
It has always been the case with this company (Kurtz and Kemeney are still
involved) that most of the code could be used 'as is' on all the different
platforms but DID need to be compiled with a version specific to the
platform.  This cross-platform independence usually broke down if you used
very much in the way of graphics as there were considerable differences
between the DOS graphics files and the MAC ones (as an example).  This
however, is no longer the case.  The newest versions (Bronze, Silver, and
Gold) now are now so compatible between Windows (3.1/95/98/NT--all the same
code) and PowerMacs that I was able to port 10,000 line programs in only an
hour or two--(basically different path formats and some manipulation of
graphics used in masked, bit-mapped animations where the Mac uses a
'negative' of the Windows graphics.)  What makes the big difference in these
newer versions is that the Windows and Mac versions can both read and
display both bitmaps (MS-BMP) and JPEG images.

Again, the bottom line is that any language that produces executables
produces programs that can run independent of the development software
package.

Rick

*****************************************************
Richard W. Tarara
Department of Chemistry & Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
219-284-4664
rtarara@saintmarys.edu

FREE PHYSICS INSTRUCTIONAL SOFTWARE AVAILABLE
see descriptions at:

http://www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/
*******************************************************


----- Original Message -----
From: Ludwik Kowalski <KowalskiL@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>
To: <PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 1999 10:34 AM
Subject: A "universal" computer language?


> In a private message XXX wrote:
>
> > I've been using True BASIC for several years.  It came with a
> > linker, which allows you to turn a compiled program into a
> > program executable on a DOS or Windows machine without
> > True BASIC.  The linker is in the runtime directory.
>
> Is this possible on the MAC? Where can I learn about the
> LINKER?
>
> My TRUE BASIC User's Manual  (1988) defines LINLING
> as putting together the subprogram and all the required
> subroutines into one unit before compiling. COMPILING
> follows and a machine code is created. I will try to run an
> executable on a machine which does not have TRUE BASIC.
> But not now.
>
> Thanks to those who reminded me that an "executable" will
> run without its language application being present.
> Ludwik Kowalski