Omnimaga
Calculator Community => TI Calculators => Axe => Topic started by: asi14 on March 11, 2014, 11:30:53 pm
-
Any differences? When I saw a screenshot of Axe, I couldnt tell much of a difference. Either I am not experienced enough in programming, or I just need to read more. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
-
Try running this code in Basic:
.AA
Data(|pi|11111111,|pi|01111111,|pi|00111111,|pi|00011111,|pi|00001111,|pi|00000111,|pi|00000011,|pi|00000001,|pi|00000000)->GDB0
L1->°AA
L1+3->°BB
ClrDraw(L1)
While 1
BB+getKey(3)-getKey(2)+96^96->BB
AA+getKey(1)-getKey(4)^64->AA
65535->Q
For(8 )
Select({BB^8+GDB0},->{Q+++AA^64*12+(BB/8->r3)+L6->r2}) xor |pi|11111111
->{r3-11??r2-11,r2+1}
End
DispGraphClrDraw
EndIf getKey(15)
Basic is interpreted and Axe is compiled, so usually, Basic is slower than Axe in games but smaller. However, Basic is more apropriate for maths program.
-
Most Axe 0.03 code is nearly identical to TI-BASIC, but like Hayleia said, Axe is compiled and most newer code is different. Axe runs much faster than TI-BASIC. If you had an Axe program run nearly as slow as a BASIC one, then there is most likely something you did wrong, such as using a DispGraph command after drawing each pixel/line/text char/etc.
-
I would rather ask for the similarities:
- Both are programmable on-calc
- Both run on the TI-84+
- Some syntax similarities on basic structures (if, while)
- ...
As already mentioned, Axe is been compiled to machine code, so it doesn't need an external program, an interpreter, to run it. While Axe is good for games and such stuff, Basic is far better for math-intensive programs as the interpreter already has a lot of math functions.