Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register. Apr 1st, 2018, 03:34am
ATTENTION MEMBERS: Conforums will be closing it doors and discontinuing its service on April 15, 2018. We apologize Conforums does not have any export functions to migrate data. Ad-Free has been deactivated. Outstanding Ad-Free credits will be reimbursed to respective payment methods.
Thank you Conforums members.
Speed up Liberty BASIC programs by up to ten times!
Compile Liberty BASIC programs to compact, standalone executables!
Overcome many of Liberty BASIC's bugs and limitations!
Command Line Compile
« Thread started on: Jan 2nd, 2013, 6:58pm »
First a huge thanks for LBB. I have been using LB as a development and prototype tool for some time and the only issue I have with LB as a final use is those extra run-times. Anyway, LBB is the answer in spades. The resulting single EXEs are so fast and tight I cannot believe it.
If you want an example of what LB and LBB can do in terms of speed - take a look at IQPDF.COM and download the IQPDF runtime and the works of Shakespeare or maybe the KJ Bible to test it on. I will not go into IQPDF here - but it is a very very fast PDF search engine.
Anyway, maybe I am not reading the documentation properly, but I have a problem with my current project, which uses a number of small modules. Because I am using 'INCLUDE to reuse core code I have a lot of recompiling to do to make sure the changes migrate properly. When I use the command line switches on LBB to try and automate the sequence, I keep getting the prompts for 'result filename' & 'overwrite' etc that need an input and thus screw up the batch file sequence.
I could write an AUTOit script to get around this, but I have the feeling that I am missing a -switch. Am I ?
I have the feeling that I am missing a -switch. Am I ?
No. The 'Save standalone executable' dialog always appears, to give the user the opportunity to choose a different name/path for the EXE or to select a different icon.
It would be possible to add a new switch to bypass that dialog, but then the EXE path/name would be the default and the icon would remain unchanged (either the default, or whatever was used in the existing EXE).
Would you like me to consider adding such a switch in a future release?
Logged
