Most complete stock BASIC for 8bit computers? [message #348124] |
Wed, 12 July 2017 17:55 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
What is the most complete stock BASIC for 8bit machines? I don't want to
include 16bit or thereafter, because almost all 8bit "home computers" had
BASIC included. While for for example the Commodore Amiga you needed to
load it from a floppy. Also for the IBM PC although it had a primitive
BASIC on rom.
I was recently reading in a manual for an Acorn Micro (probably "BBC B
Micro", it says it is for "Acorn OS 64K"), which also has *user*
*created* procedures and functions. And is AFAIK not by Microsoft. I'd
say this is the most complete BASIC matching the give conditions above.
I know the Commodore 128 BASIC is also quite good, but don't think it has
user created functions and other advanced things the BASIC for the Acorn
has. What about Amstrad's BASIC? Or others?
Even if others are more complete, one have to keep in mind that the Acorn
BASIC is from around 1980, while the C128 is from 1985. Five years were
generations apart back then.
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
the trunk of your car is tied down and you're not hauling anything.
|
|
|
|
Re: Most complete stock BASIC for 8bit computers? [message #348138 is a reply to message #348124] |
Wed, 12 July 2017 22:14 |
Mike Tomlinson
Messages: 104 Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
En el artículo <87h8yhpbga.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach
<ank@spamfence.net> escribió:
ps.
> I was recently reading in a manual for an Acorn Micro (probably "BBC B
> Micro", it says it is for "Acorn OS 64K"), which also has *user*
> *created* procedures and functions.
By the way, did you know that the ARM processor (developed by Acorn, who
produced the BBC range of machines), was originally modelled in BBC
BASIC? (ARM stands for Acorn RISC Machine)
http://www.bbcbasic.co.uk/bbcbasic/birthday/index.html
http://www.bbcbasic.co.uk/bbcbasic/birthday/arm_model.html
ARM is, of course, now the most popular CPU in the world by volume.
> And is AFAIK not by Microsoft
It was written in-house by Roger (now Sophie) Wilson of Acorn.
--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West
|
|
|
Re: Most complete stock BASIC for 8bit computers? [message #348149 is a reply to message #348137] |
Wed, 12 July 2017 23:43 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399 Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 7:36:24 PM UTC-6, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
> One really nice feature was the built-in inline assembler. You could
> write assembly code within a BASIC program and it would be compiled and
> executed at run-time.
Incidentally, some early versions of FORTRAN also provided this feature.
John Savard
|
|
|
Re: Most complete stock BASIC for 8bit computers? [message #348165 is a reply to message #348137] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 03:25 |
Andy Leighton
Messages: 203 Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 02:36:25 +0100, Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
> En el artículo <87h8yhpbga.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach
> <ank@spamfence.net> escribió:
>
>> I was recently reading in a manual for an Acorn Micro (probably "BBC B
>> Micro", it says it is for "Acorn OS 64K")
>
> that would have been the BBC model B+
>
> http://chrisacorns.computinghistory.org.uk/Computers/BBCB+64 .html
>
>> , which also has *user*
>> *created* procedures and functions
>
> yes. it was elegant and miles ahead of other machines of the time. You
> could also declare variables local to the procedure.
>
> http://www.riscos.com/support/developers/bbcbasic/part2/proc edures.html
It also had REPEAT UNTIL loops which was unusual.
The version that came with the Archimedes was even better but that
probably doesn't fit with the OP's search
QL SuperBasic was pretty good too (although it was designed after
BBC Basic). User created functions and procedures, repeat loops,
array operations, local variables (including arrays), resident
procedures (extends the OS), relative restore/data.
--
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams
|
|
|
Re: Most complete stock BASIC for 8bit computers? [message #348166 is a reply to message #348149] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 03:40 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399 Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 9:43:23 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 7:36:24 PM UTC-6, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
>> One really nice feature was the built-in inline assembler. You could
>> write assembly code within a BASIC program and it would be compiled and
>> executed at run-time.
> Incidentally, some early versions of FORTRAN also provided this feature.
A web search found two examples - both Fortran 77 compilers - the Cyber 205 and
the Harris 100, 200, and 500. But I'm sure this was more common as a feature in
the days of Fortran II.
John Savard
|
|
|
Re: Most complete stock BASIC for 8bit computers? [message #348167 is a reply to message #348166] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 03:51 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399 Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 1:40:46 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> A web search found two examples - both Fortran 77 compilers - the Cyber 205 and
> the Harris 100, 200, and 500. But I'm sure this was more common as a feature in
> the days of Fortran II.
Maybe not. A search for an example turned up many references to IBM considering
in-line assembler as a feature for the never-released Fortran III. But I was
thinking of the many other companies that made Fortran II compilers for their
computers.
John Savard
|
|
|
Re: Most complete stock BASIC for 8bit computers? [message #348213 is a reply to message #348124] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 12:59 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799 Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> What is the most complete stock BASIC for 8bit machines? I don't want to
> include 16bit or thereafter, because almost all 8bit "home computers" had
> BASIC included. While for for example the Commodore Amiga you needed to
> load it from a floppy. Also for the IBM PC although it had a primitive
> BASIC on rom.
>
> I was recently reading in a manual for an Acorn Micro (probably "BBC B
> Micro", it says it is for "Acorn OS 64K"), which also has *user*
> *created* procedures and functions. And is AFAIK not by Microsoft. I'd
> say this is the most complete BASIC matching the give conditions above.
>
> I know the Commodore 128 BASIC is also quite good, but don't think it has
> user created functions and other advanced things the BASIC for the Acorn
> has. What about Amstrad's BASIC? Or others?
>
> Even if others are more complete, one have to keep in mind that the Acorn
> BASIC is from around 1980, while the C128 is from 1985. Five years were
> generations apart back then.
But what's "complete"?
The inventors of BASIC were fussing at one point over how small cmoputer
BASIC was lacking in some way (so they came out with "True BASIC"). But
there were tiny BASICs because of memory limitations, but endless BASICs
that had computer specific extensions. I remember reading a review of a
Sphere computer, and they either suggested or knew that the really slow
BASIC was slow because it was written for some other computer and there
was an emulator underneath to run it on the new CPU (something I gather
happened with an pre-PC IBM small computer). I bet that one bloated up
because of the extra emulator. Some of the Commodore BASICs seemed to
take up a lot of space, but I'm not sure that gave them more
"completeness".
Michael
|
|
|
Re: Most complete stock BASIC for 8bit computers? [message #348217 is a reply to message #348165] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 13:12 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799 Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jul 2017, Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 02:36:25 +0100, Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
>> En el artículo <87h8yhpbga.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach
>> <ank@spamfence.net> escribió:
>>
>>> I was recently reading in a manual for an Acorn Micro (probably "BBC B
>>> Micro", it says it is for "Acorn OS 64K")
>>
>> that would have been the BBC model B+
>>
>> http://chrisacorns.computinghistory.org.uk/Computers/BBCB+64 .html
>>
>>> , which also has *user*
>>> *created* procedures and functions
>>
>> yes. it was elegant and miles ahead of other machines of the time. You
>> could also declare variables local to the procedure.
>>
>> http://www.riscos.com/support/developers/bbcbasic/part2/proc edures.html
>
> It also had REPEAT UNTIL loops which was unusual.
>
There was Microware BASIC09, to show off the 6809. Motorola went to
Microware, which had produced some monitor software for the 6800, and
asked them to come up with a BASIC to make use of the architecture of the
6809. They did, and also came up with the multiuser/multitasking OS-9
operating system. I forget exactly what it included, but it had more than
for...next loops.
Michael
|
|
|
Re: Most complete stock BASIC for 8bit computers? [message #348260 is a reply to message #348213] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 16:31 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 12:58:25 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
> The inventors of BASIC were fussing at one point over how small cmoputer
> BASIC was lacking in some way (so they came out with "True BASIC"). But
> there were tiny BASICs because of memory limitations, but endless BASICs
> that had computer specific extensions. I remember reading a review of a
> Sphere computer, and they either suggested or knew that the really slow
> BASIC was slow because it was written for some other computer and there
> was an emulator underneath to run it on the new CPU (something I gather
> happened with an pre-PC IBM small computer). I bet that one bloated up
> because of the extra emulator. Some of the Commodore BASICs seemed to
> take up a lot of space, but I'm not sure that gave them more
> "completeness".
IIRC, the original Kemeny-Kurtz BASIC had a number of limitations. It
was indeed a very "basic" language. However, in many relatively simple
tasks, it was much easier and faster than FORTRAN. In the mid 1960s,
computer time was still very expensive and access limited. Time sharing
was very useful. Sure beat a slide rule or mechanical desk calculator.
The HP-2000 system's TimeSharedBasic introduced some very useful
extensions and was pretty popular.
|
|
|
Re: Most complete stock BASIC for 8bit computers? [message #348261 is a reply to message #348124] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 16:33 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 3:33:28 PM UTC-4, Dave Garland wrote:
> At one time in the late 1980s I was supporting an accounting system
> that ran on a Qantel mini. It was written in a BASIC dialect that had
> database extensions. But I have no idea what hardware was under the
> hood, other than that the (desk-size) mini was self-contained (with a
> cartridge tape drive for backup) and supported a number of terminals.
> Really horrid terminals, the keyboards made your hands hurt if you had
> to type very much.
Would you recall if it handled currency well? Did it have formatted
output (i.e. PRINT USING statement)?
|
|
|
Re: Most complete stock BASIC for 8bit computers? [message #348263 is a reply to message #348213] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 16:47 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:59:19 -0400, Michael Black wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2017, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>
>> What is the most complete stock BASIC for 8bit machines? I don't want to
>> include 16bit or thereafter, because almost all 8bit "home computers" had
>> BASIC included. While for for example the Commodore Amiga you needed to
>> load it from a floppy. Also for the IBM PC although it had a primitive
>> BASIC on rom.
>>
>> I was recently reading in a manual for an Acorn Micro (probably "BBC B
>> Micro", it says it is for "Acorn OS 64K"), which also has *user*
>> *created* procedures and functions. And is AFAIK not by Microsoft. I'd
>> say this is the most complete BASIC matching the give conditions above.
>>
>> I know the Commodore 128 BASIC is also quite good, but don't think it has
>> user created functions and other advanced things the BASIC for the Acorn
>> has. What about Amstrad's BASIC? Or others?
>>
>> Even if others are more complete, one have to keep in mind that the Acorn
>> BASIC is from around 1980, while the C128 is from 1985. Five years were
>> generations apart back then.
>
> But what's "complete"?
Suppose there is the perfect BASIC somewhere if you wouldn't have
hardware (memory here) restrains.
> The inventors of BASIC were fussing at one point over how small
> cmoputer BASIC was lacking in some way (so they came out with "True
> BASIC"). But there were tiny BASICs because of memory limitations,
> but endless BASICs that had computer specific extensions.
I should have added memory doesn't matter. Well 64K RAM and a huge BASIC
ROM for that.
I read the BBC B+ has 64/128 KB RAM. Not sure if the 64K model already
had this awesome BASIC built in or just the 128K version. And if, how
much space (RAM) it would leave for programs, assuming it's "mirrored"
over the RAM as done for the Commodore 64.
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
you use your fishing license as a form of i.d.
|
|
|
Re: Most complete stock BASIC for 8bit computers? [message #348264 is a reply to message #348124] |
Thu, 13 July 2017 17:16 |
|
Originally posted by: drb
> At one time in the late 1980s I was supporting an accounting system
> that ran on a Qantel mini. It was written in a BASIC dialect that had
> database extensions. But I have no idea what hardware was under the
> hood, other than that the (desk-size) mini was self-contained (with a
> cartridge tape drive for backup) and supported a number of terminals.
> Really horrid terminals, the keyboards made your hands hurt if you had
> to type very much.
If the target arena is business applications, it'd be hard to beat
IBM's S/23 basic, which had indexed file handling, PRINT USING, and
a bunch of other stuff.
De
|
|
|
Re: Most complete stock BASIC for 8bit computers? [message #348305 is a reply to message #348124] |
Fri, 14 July 2017 00:16 |
Mike Tomlinson
Messages: 104 Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
En el artículo <87zic8qddh.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach
<ank@spamfence.net> escribió:
> Are you Spanish or Portuguese?
Neither. But I worked in the Canary Islands for many years and have a
home there.
>
>> ps.
>
> This Spanish (or Portuguese) too? ;-)
Spanish :)
> That I knew. I have two. And only one from AMD.
You probably have more than you think. In your TV, your internet router,
your phone, your fridge, Raspberry Pi, etc. etc. etc.
--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West
|
|
|
Re: Most complete stock BASIC for 8bit computers? [message #348306 is a reply to message #348263] |
Fri, 14 July 2017 00:19 |
Mike Tomlinson
Messages: 104 Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
En el artículo <87wp7cqd2z.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach
<ank@spamfence.net> escribió:
> I read the BBC B+ has 64/128 KB RAM. Not sure if the 64K model already
> had this awesome BASIC built in
It does. It's in a 16K ROM which is included as standard with the
machine
> or just the 128K version. And if, how
> much space (RAM) it would leave for programs
It depended on the screen mode in use - there were eight. In mode 7,
the teletext mode, you have about 20K available for BASIC programs, in
mode 0, the highest resolution mode, about 5K.
> , assuming it's "mirrored"
> over the RAM as done for the Commodore 64
it's not.
--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West
|
|
|
Re: Most complete stock BASIC for 8bit computers? [message #348339 is a reply to message #348263] |
Fri, 14 July 2017 09:01 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173 Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:59:19 -0400, Michael Black wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2017, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>
>>> What is the most complete stock BASIC for 8bit machines? I don't want to
>>> include 16bit or thereafter, because almost all 8bit "home computers" had
>>> BASIC included. While for for example the Commodore Amiga you needed to
>>> load it from a floppy. Also for the IBM PC although it had a primitive
>>> BASIC on rom.
>>>
>>> I was recently reading in a manual for an Acorn Micro (probably "BBC B
>>> Micro", it says it is for "Acorn OS 64K"), which also has *user*
>>> *created* procedures and functions. And is AFAIK not by Microsoft. I'd
>>> say this is the most complete BASIC matching the give conditions above.
>>>
>>> I know the Commodore 128 BASIC is also quite good, but don't think it has
>>> user created functions and other advanced things the BASIC for the Acorn
>>> has. What about Amstrad's BASIC? Or others?
>>>
>>> Even if others are more complete, one have to keep in mind that the Acorn
>>> BASIC is from around 1980, while the C128 is from 1985. Five years were
>>> generations apart back then.
>>
>> But what's "complete"?
>
> Suppose there is the perfect BASIC somewhere if you wouldn't have
> hardware (memory here) restrains.
There is no such thing as "complete" nor perfect. Are you talking
about an implementation which covers everything described in a
standared? Or are you talking about an implementation which
reflects the "current" standard plus all extensions which have
not yet been defined?
<snip>
/BAH
|
|
|
Re: Most complete stock BASIC for 8bit computers? [message #348384 is a reply to message #348339] |
Fri, 14 July 2017 15:14 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 14 Jul 2017 13:01:20 GMT, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
> Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:59:19 -0400, Michael Black wrote:
>>>
>>> But what's "complete"?
>>
>> Suppose there is the perfect BASIC somewhere if you wouldn't have
>> hardware (memory here) restrains.
>
> There is no such thing as "complete" nor perfect. Are you talking
> about an implementation which covers everything described in a
> standared? Or are you talking about an implementation which
> reflects the "current" standard plus all extensions which have
> not yet been defined?
I called it "complete", assuming there is some outlining by John
G. Kemeny and Thomas E. Kurtz what it should have.
Then some crippled BASIC versions came along. Like the one for the
Commodore 64. Here I don't understand why. It has the most memory you can
have for an 8bit computer (without tricks like bank switching). Other
machine with 48K or less had better BASIC versions than the C64...
If I understand the Wikipedia page for BASIC correctly, user defined
functions were implemented in the original idea. But so far I only saw it
in BBC BASIC.
Procedures then were added later. So not part of the original idea.
Anyway, let's say I am looking for the (stock) BASIC for a machine with
the *most* commands.
Looks like the BBC wins.
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
the antenna on your truck is a danger to low flying airplanes.
|
|
|
Re: Most complete stock BASIC for 8bit computers? [message #348386 is a reply to message #348263] |
Fri, 14 July 2017 15:25 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 4:47:01 PM UTC-4, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> I read the BBC B+ has 64/128 KB RAM. Not sure if the 64K model already
> had this awesome BASIC built in or just the 128K version. And if, how
> much space (RAM) it would leave for programs, assuming it's "mirrored"
> over the RAM as done for the Commodore 64.
The M/S QuickBasic compiler ran in a 64k space. However, it had
optional memory command and spec statements to allow it to make use
of memory beyond that, which it called the "far heap".
IMHO, the QB compiler was a very good system for its time. The
executables ran very fast.
The "professional" version cost more, but I'm not sure it did a whole
lot more than the QB version.
However, IMHO, the maturity of spreadsheet and database programs
made QB obsolete. One could do a lot of things with far less
coding.
Also, to get a good I/O interface, one needed to code their own
interrupt handlers. Not hard to do, but a bit tedious. This
would include better handling of printer being not ready, or
disk not ready.
|
|
|
Re: Most complete stock BASIC for 8bit computers? [message #348400 is a reply to message #348384] |
Fri, 14 July 2017 17:21 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On 14 Jul 2017 13:01:20 GMT, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>> Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:59:19 -0400, Michael Black wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But what's "complete"?
>>>
>>> Suppose there is the perfect BASIC somewhere if you wouldn't have
>>> hardware (memory here) restrains.
>>
>> There is no such thing as "complete" nor perfect. Are you talking
>> about an implementation which covers everything described in a
>> standared? Or are you talking about an implementation which
>> reflects the "current" standard plus all extensions which have
>> not yet been defined?
>
> I called it "complete", assuming there is some outlining by John
> G. Kemeny and Thomas E. Kurtz what it should have.
Their latest is "True Basic", but I don't think its gone anywhere.
>
> Then some crippled BASIC versions came along. Like the one for the
> Commodore 64. Here I don't understand why. It has the most memory you can
> have for an 8bit computer (without tricks like bank switching). Other
> machine with 48K or less had better BASIC versions than the C64...
>
> If I understand the Wikipedia page for BASIC correctly, user defined
> functions were implemented in the original idea. But so far I only saw it
> in BBC BASIC.
>
> Procedures then were added later. So not part of the original idea.
>
> Anyway, let's say I am looking for the (stock) BASIC for a machine with
> the *most* commands.
>
> Looks like the BBC wins.
--
Pete
|
|
|
Re: Most complete stock BASIC for 8bit computers? [message #348419 is a reply to message #348339] |
Fri, 14 July 2017 21:04 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 7/14/2017 8:01 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>
>> Suppose there is the perfect BASIC somewhere if you wouldn't have
>> hardware (memory here) restrains.
"Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress;
but I repeat myself."
-- Mark Twain
>
> There is no such thing as "complete" nor perfect. Are you talking
> about an implementation which covers everything described in a
> standared? Or are you talking about an implementation which
> reflects the "current" standard plus all extensions which have
> not yet been defined?
>
> <snip>
>
> /BAH
>
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
|
|