XPost: comp.sys.atari.8bit, comp.sys.cbm   
   From: whiteflame52@y.a.h.o.o.com   
      
   "David Bowden"  wrote in message   
   news:wM-dnRmm27sN0yPeRVn-qA@comcast.com...   
   > Anyways, I don't know much about all the different BASICs available for   
   the   
   > C64 (a quick google search led me to a page with a SHITLOAD of different   
   > ones. wow.).   
   >   
   > On to the question: So Simon's BASIC is supposedly fast as hell, eh? How   
   > does it compare to Turbo BASIC XL (my favorite flavor on the Atari)? Each   
   > have their respective compilers.   
      
   The reason that so many BASICs were released is that the built-in BASIC   
   sucked. (Yes, I'm a 100% C64 guy, but it's simply fact that CBM BASIC V2 is   
   underpowered for the hardware and the disk drive speed is crippled.   
   Everything else is automatically better than any non-C64 machine, though.   
   ) )  So there was a supposed market for BASIC upgrades, but most decent   
   programmers went straight to assembly instead of trying to boost the BASIC   
   capabilities.  BASIC had basically become regarded as for beginners and   
   lamers, though it had some limited success in business/serious applications.   
   In regards to your question, I don't think you're going to get much response   
   about the various performance measures of upgraded C= BASICs because the   
   most people who would care about such performance didn't use them. :)   
      
   --   
   White Flame (aka David Holz)   
   http://www.white-flame.com/   
   (spamblock in effect)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)