What makes Quick Batch File Compiler better than the others?

Convert your BATch files into EXEcutable format in one click.
support
Site Admin
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:05 pm

Post by support »

We have no public demos.

What do you think if QBFC will generate .NET executables?
Whale
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:56 pm

Post by Whale »

support wrote:We have no public demos.

What do you think if QBFC will generate .NET executables?
Your question caught me by surprise. :shock:

Do it really have to be in .net format?

I remember theres a freeware .net compiler in softpedia. Its a batch compiler using .net but never get to run, so deleted it and I also forgot its name. It uses .net to cojmpile but I cant remember whether the compiled exe is in .net or not since I never manage to start the program at all.
support
Site Admin
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:05 pm

Post by support »

.NET is a Microsoft platform. It use standard EXE files, but they will require a .NET framework installed on user PC.

We are working on our own bytecode compiler, but thinking about use something standard - like Java or .NET virtual machines.
We can translate batch script to any language - Pascal, C, PHP and compile it with .net compiler to real executable.

It's not a same way as freware .net compiler from softpedia.
Whale
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:56 pm

Post by Whale »

Can it not be .net dependent? :(

If its possible not to made it a .net dependent, it would be great.
support
Site Admin
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:05 pm

Post by support »

Our virtual machine doesn't have .net dependency.
Whale
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:56 pm

Post by Whale »

support wrote:Our virtual machine doesn't have .net dependency.
Good. :D So when all of us see even a release date? :shock:
support
Site Admin
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:05 pm

Post by support »

I think we will release new version until new year.
Whale
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:56 pm

Post by Whale »

support wrote:I think we will release new version until new year.
Now is 2014, an update regarding it would nice.
support
Site Admin
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:05 pm

Post by support »

Whale wrote: Now is 2014, an update regarding it would nice.
Users' interest in the compiler has fallen dramatically. Most peoples migrated to the Powershell.
Whale
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:56 pm

Post by Whale »

support wrote: Users' interest in the compiler has fallen dramatically. Most peoples migrated to the Powershell.
Well, I still use batch file daily, batch file havent reach its expire day yet, and alot of people I know still use it daily too. :)

So how's the development getting on? :?:
support
Site Admin
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:05 pm

Post by support »

Whale wrote: So how's the development getting on? :?:
Virtual machine supports most commands except FOR/IF statements.
Whale
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:56 pm

Post by Whale »

support wrote: Virtual machine supports most commands except FOR/IF statements.
So will I be seeing a beta this year? :D
support
Site Admin
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:05 pm

Post by support »

I don't know. All developers focused on the another project.
support
Site Admin
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:05 pm

Re: What makes Quick Batch File Compiler better than the others?

Post by support »

Many years ago we were asked the question - what makes our product better than others. Now we can say unambiguously that QBFC is the only real bat to exe compiler. No competitor has ever been able to do without creating temporary files.
Post Reply