F*** the 64..

[Bryan]

I am beginning to suspect that SIO99 doesn't like C64 BASIC.

[SIO99]

Of course, Commodore first brought out some reasonable BASIC dialects in cartridge form (VIC Super Expander, Simon's BASIC, etc), but these were only good for writing programs for personal use, because not many computer owners did programming and any programs written using these extra commands could only run on Commodore 64s and VIC-20s which had one of these cartridges fitted. There were also various other extended BASICs for the Commodore 64 available on cassette. There was nothing like Turbo BASIC for the Atari, though. Lots of software was only available on disk, but the Commodore 1541 disk drive was more expensive than the computer and slower than some cassette drives!

 

Garry Kitchen's GameMaker would compile your game into a stand-alone executable prg file.

 

I saw some ads for a game making package before I sold the C64, but I'm not sure if that was the one. I decided that I should have the option of programming games myself in a PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE, so that ruled out the C64 and I sold it.

[Lazarus]

Uhm that's what a whole lot of people did on C64: Programming games in a programming language (assembler).

[+Random Terrain]

Of course, Commodore first brought out some reasonable BASIC dialects in cartridge form (VIC Super Expander, Simon's BASIC, etc), but these were only good for writing programs for personal use, because not many computer owners did programming and any programs written using these extra commands could only run on Commodore 64s and VIC-20s which had one of these cartridges fitted. There were also various other extended BASICs for the Commodore 64 available on cassette. There was nothing like Turbo BASIC for the Atari, though. Lots of software was only available on disk, but the Commodore 1541 disk drive was more expensive than the computer and slower than some cassette drives!

 

Garry Kitchen's GameMaker would compile your game into a stand-alone executable prg file.

 

I saw some ads for a game making package before I sold the C64, but I'm not sure if that was the one. I decided that I should have the option of programming games myself in a PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE, so that ruled out the C64 and I sold it.

 

It used a programming language:

 

http://www.mts.net/~...maker/info.html

The core of GameMaker that ties everything together is the programming environment, a simple structured language that allows complete control of a game. Most of the commands are very basic and intuitive.

 

Looks like you missed out.

[SIO99]

LOL!!!

 

Well, the book isn't that expensive, and the various stories of that time are generally great reads, but that's just me.

 

Seriously? All that over a BASIC?

 

The first computer I really got to program on did TEXT. (Trash 80, Model I) Thought it was cool enough. Honestly, you've a fair point on commands to exploit the graphics and sound of the machine, but... There were lots of ways to get stuff done, and full games published in magazines back then too. (Wish I had saved them, but we swapped titles for the type-ins, and tricks.) Most people I know, enjoyed getting at the hardware, PEEKS and POKES. On the 64, a few of those saw sprites moving over rather easily defined character maps... Oh well. Rant away. I'm entertained. Seriously, no angst intended.

 

Recently, I've been doing lots of research into the history of computing, helped by a compilation DVD full of emulators, plus PDFs of user guides, and magazines. From this, I've found out that There were 3 mass produced, readily assembled (i.e. not in kit form) computers which appeared on the market in 1977, although not many people bought them compared to later models and not many people had heard of or noticed them at the time. These computers were the TRS-80 Model 1, the Commodore PET, and the Apple II. My research into the BASIC dialects on these computers has revealed that the TRS-80 had a single graphics command called SET. This allowed users to plot a point on the screen and could be embedded in FOR...NEXT loops to draw lines. I know this because I've done it on an emulator. This command was renamed PSET, and accompanied by PRESET, LINE, PAINT and CIRCLE, in later versions of BASIC, which were generally described as Microsoft Extended BASIC. The earliest BASIC for the Apple II was called Integer BASIC, followed up by Floating Point BASIC. Apple took the trouble to include graphics commands with their versions of BASIC. Later on, the Apple II was supplied with Applesoft BASIC by Microsoft, but all the graphics commands were different. It's no surprise that Commodore alone out of these had no graphics capabilities on their Commodore PET with PET BASIC V1.0, which was later extended to PET BASIC V2.0. Later on, a graphics board was released for the PET, but I don't know how anyone was supposed to use it. This PET BASIC V2.0 was just ported to the Commodore VIC-20 and Commodore 64. There were control codes that could be embedded in PRINT statements to set text colour, but that's all. These control codes continued in the PET tradition where you had to type PRINT "[inverse heart]" to clear the screen, instead of CLS, or HOME on the Apple II. Commodore eventually wrote a command called SCNCLR in more than one of their later BASICs, such as on cartridge for the VIC-20 and/or C64, on ROM for the Commodore 16 and Commodore Plus 4 flops, then finally on the Commodore 128, but it was all too little, too late.

 

Later on, I bought an Amiga, but this wasn't even designed by Commodore and I thought they were partly making up for past crimes against computing. It was supplied with AmigaBASIC, based on Microsoft BASIC for the Mac, but I think it probably had some extra commands for sprites and bobs. BASIC programming wasn't encouraged enough on the Amiga, though.

Edited April 30, 2012 by SIO99

[Bryan]

Looks like you missed out.

But by then C64 BASIC had given him such a terrible case of rickets that it was too late.

[SIO99]

Of course, Commodore first brought out some reasonable BASIC dialects in cartridge form (VIC Super Expander, Simon's BASIC, etc), but these were only good for writing programs for personal use, because not many computer owners did programming and any programs written using these extra commands could only run on Commodore 64s and VIC-20s which had one of these cartridges fitted. There were also various other extended BASICs for the Commodore 64 available on cassette. There was nothing like Turbo BASIC for the Atari, though. Lots of software was only available on disk, but the Commodore 1541 disk drive was more expensive than the computer and slower than some cassette drives!

 

Garry Kitchen's GameMaker would compile your game into a stand-alone executable prg file.

 

I saw some ads for a game making package before I sold the C64, but I'm not sure if that was the one. I decided that I should have the option of programming games myself in a PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE, so that ruled out the C64 and I sold it.

 

It used a programming language:

 

http://www.mts.net/~...maker/info.html

The core of GameMaker that ties everything together is the programming environment, a simple structured language that allows complete control of a game. Most of the commands are very basic and intuitive.

 

Looks like you missed out.

 

I remember now from the graphics that this was the game making package I saw advertised shortly before selling the C64. From reading that website it doesn't make me feel I've missed out. It even says that when the software was loaded, there was less than 4K free! What exactly does that mean? There are also restrictions, such as not being able to load graphics from disk (or tape?), having only two pre prepared backgrounds, and an ugly chunky font, worse than the VIC-20. Apart from this, I can't see any listings of the BASIC type programming language it used. I don't think I've missed anything.

[sack-c0s]

somebody get SIO99 a fricking Jupiter Ace!

 

Edited April 30, 2012 by sack-c0s

[Mclaneinc]

Wasn't the ACE forth?

 

We sold them but I can't remember if it was that or the Sord M5..

[sack-c0s]

Wasn't the ACE forth?

 

We sold them but I can't remember if it was that or the Sord M5..

 

It was - which is why I figured it'd stop him bitching about various dialects of BASIC

[Mclaneinc]

Aha....I get your drift...

 

God help us if he likes forth as well

[fernando marrin]

As much as i love the 8bit/ 5200 , the 64's library is unbeatable...

[Lazarus]

As much as i love the 8bit/ 5200 , the 64's library is unbeatable...

Impossible! Due to lack of a prober BASIC nobody was able to program games on C64.

[Heaven/TQA]

now 10 years here on the board and in general we are bitching for sprites, sound, sometimes disk speed and how the hell now we are for the BASIC? aehm...

[potatohead]

Forth! I've never tried it, though I have read over how it works. Very intriguing. Adept Forth programmers can bring up complex systems on damn near anything, and they can do so very quickly. A small kernel in assembly, coupled with the fundamental words needed to build others, and that's it! Import all the words one is used to using, and entire environments, programs, systems port over nicely. Damn cool.

 

There is what appears to be a solid Forth up and running on the Parallax Propeller.

 

@Bryan: Yep.

 

SIO, seriously dude. So you wanted graphics built in. We get it. You are right too, those early BASICS did offer some graphics capability. Even my Tandy Model 100 has graphics. (that machine is damn cool, and I take notes on it at work once in a while to blow minds...)

 

But I don't feel for you that much. Really, I don't. When I was that age, exploring the computers, I gathered with friends and interested adults and we got stuff done! Some of those people went on to become ace programmers too. I ended up headed into manufacturing, where G-CODE and such distracted me for many years, resulting in my programming today being a work in progress, but I never lost that ethic.

 

6502 didn't have multiply! Hell, it won't even do 16 bit numbers, what a bitch that was!

 

That friend with a 6809 computer, the one with a "real" CPU in it currently being transplanted into an Atari proper, was a breeze to program, by comparison. Did we sit it out, lamenting over stuff like that? No. We programmed the computers. Apples didn't have any real sound commands, for example. Just as lame ass as the 64 in that area. You could get a beep easy enough, and yeah, printing control-G got it done, but... The answer? Go and steal a sound routine, or write one. The first little tune took DAYS. The steps were clear after reading and talking and observing other programs.

 

1. Get a call issued from Applesoft, then have it just return so the program keeps running. Check.

2. Do it again, only this time, store modify registers, writing to the text screen as a test, return. Check.

3. Identify the "click" soft switches. Check.

4. Write a loop, clicking rapidly. Check. (couldn't hear that one)

5. Write a FAT loop, clicking less rapidly. Check. And there is the joy right there people!

6. Write a controllable loop. Check.

7. Do some math, some testing with the piano, to get notes. Check.

8. Write simple, goofy Applesoft program to play tune. Check, done!

 

On an Atari, that was SOUND(a,b,c,d) --:>Sweet! But the fun was making the computers do stuff. That sound lark was how we discovered what a monitor was, and the mini-assembler, etc... Turns out wanting a tune was a bit of a nice education. Glass half-full kind of thing. That assembler sure beat hand assembling on paper to type hex codes in, BTW. I used to frown on any machine that didn't have such basic, and seemingly obvious things built in, and that means the Atari just had to suck, because it wouldn't just assemble 6502 for me outta the box... Silly isn't it? I think so now.

 

This is how it goes, and it is how it went then too. Some computers had built in's, some computers didn't, and the built-ins sometimes made good use of the computer, and sometimes they did not. BASIC was the entry way, the command prompt, the gateway into the box. If the facilities were a bit spartan, or didn't actually bring a feature out proper, people did the work to get at it, and they shared it, and the rest of it all is why that time was a fucking golden time no matter what computer a person had.

 

You know, it's not too late! Get after it. The machines are still there. Code is still there, and there is lots of new, very clever code, and god like tools compared to the hand scribbled notes, sometimes copied from the blackboard (you know the kind with chalk, not fancy white board stuff today), photocopied scraps from borrowed data books, binders filled with programs and notes, and worn, haggard system manuals and "how to" books, passed around because most people couldn't afford the whole lot.

 

So it chapped your ass then. It really shouldn't now.

 

I totally remember beating up on people, and getting beat up over who had what machine, and what it did or didn't do. Game on man! That's what most of us did then, and should be doing now. Cheers.

Edited April 30, 2012 by potatohead

[JamesD]

I am beginning to suspect that SIO99 doesn't like C64 BASIC.

What tipped you off? It couldn't be the rant he's posted in two threads could it?

Edited April 30, 2012 by JamesD

[JamesD]

Damn... the forum update doesn't let us "Like" posts anymore.

[sack-c0s]

Aha....I get your drift...

 

God help us if he likes forth as well

 

Given that the fundamental technique behind forth programming is *extending the base language by defining keywords* it should give him very little to complain about

Edited April 30, 2012 by sack-c0s

[potatohead]

Yeah, I think that's a crock of shit. Must be angering the natives... or maybe it's just an oversight. Hope so, because that's a great feature. Dumbing things down to keep the "folks" happy always did piss me off. AA is worth a notch less today. Now we are back to either not feeding that stuff back, or shallow short quotes, followed by: [insert it here] +1, "what he said", etc...

 

@AL: I'll subscribe, if you put 'em back. Thanks PH.

 

EDIT: I see the reputation system has issues contributing to poor service. No worries Al. Appreciate what you do.

 

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/197276-forum-upgraded-4292012-please-read/

Edited April 30, 2012 by potatohead

[Bryan]

I am beginning to suspect that SIO99 doesn't like C64 BASIC.

What tipped you off? It couldn't be the rant he's posted in two threads could it?

Yeah, it's subtle but I'm beginning to read between the lines. You know all those other things he's posted about, all those things other than how he doesn't like the C64, I think they may just be to hide his true feelings.

[Tempest]

..Well that's what the article is called

This may be true, but we do have SOME standards here on AA. I made the title a bit more appropriate.

[SIO99]

Wasn't the ACE forth?

 

We sold them but I can't remember if it was that or the Sord M5..

 

It was - which is why I figured it'd stop him bitching about various dialects of BASIC

 

I'm only bitching about Commodore 64 BASIC. I first heard of the Jupiter Ace in a magazine featuring various computers that were on the market. They had a star rating system, which rated the Commodore 64 as more "user friendly" than the BBC Micro! There was no rating specifically for BASIC, though. I can't even find a Jupiter Ace for sale on eBay at the moment, but I know they're quite expensive and are usually bought up by investors instead of enthusiasts. I studied Forth in a series of articles in an Amstrad magazine, before buying an Amstrad. It sounded interesting, but then I never got a Forth package. I know that the whole point of Forth is to write new commands called "words" which extend the language and help you form programs. In that video, I only noticed one graphics command called PLOT, so that means you should be able to base any graphics routines on that. If I wanted Forth, I could download it from somewhere free of charge for Linux OS. At the moment, I'm just designing a background for an Atari 8 bit game I'm writing.

[+Stephen]

Damn... the forum update doesn't let us "Like" posts anymore.

It will return - it's currently being debugged.

[snicklin]

 

 

But MK we can agree that TMR published more stuff than you? and that Callisto is looking like it looks could be simply because of lack experience on A8? Neverless the brain work...

 

Personally I feel that Callisto is a very good go at a shooter for the A8. OK, lets look at what we have already.... Zybex? Zybex to me is one of the best of it's type and to me, this beats it technically, with the DLI'd PMGs.

 

The difficulty level is being worked on and the game isn't complete yet, but it will be some time in the near future. I've played the game stood next to TMR and very impressed I was.

 

The C64 is a different machine, it'll have it's own strengths and weaknesses. The Atari has them too. Jeez, my PC is better than both of them.

[JamesD]

Recently, I've been doing lots of research into the history of computing, helped by a compilation DVD full of emulators, plus PDFs of user guides, and magazines. From this, I've found out that There were 3 mass produced, readily assembled (i.e. not in kit form) computers which appeared on the market in 1977, although not many people bought them compared to later models and not many people had heard of or noticed them at the time. These computers were the TRS-80 Model 1, the Commodore PET, and the Apple II. My research into the BASIC dialects on these computers has revealed that the TRS-80 had a single graphics command called SET. This allowed users to plot a point on the screen and could be embedded in FOR...NEXT loops to draw lines. I know this because I've done it on an emulator.

Actually, the fast way to draw anything on the TRS-80 was with PRINT or POKE because you could actually SET and RESET up to six pixels with a single character.

 

This command was renamed PSET, and accompanied by PRESET, LINE, PAINT and CIRCLE, in later versions of BASIC, which were generally described as Microsoft Extended BASIC.

Graphics commands like that first started to appeared in Microsoft BASIC in 1979 with Level III BASIC for the TRS-80. It came on cassette and was not compatible with disk BASIC so it quickly disappeared. However, most of those commands didn't appear until the Extended Color BASIC was released on the CoCo.

Apple was really the first to provide graphics commands but they were a separate product.

 

The earliest BASIC for the Apple II was called Integer BASIC, followed up by Floating Point BASIC. Apple took the trouble to include graphics commands with their versions of BASIC. Later on, the Apple II was supplied with Applesoft BASIC by Microsoft, but all the graphics commands were different.

This is my understanding of what happened though some of the sources I've read sometimes conflict with each other.

 

The first Floating Point BASIC was Applesoft (by Microsoft).

They came out with Applesoft II BASIC later.

 

Applesoft and Applesoft II BASIC could be loaded from cassette or came on a slot 0 ROM board on the Apple II. Later, the language card replaced the ROM board so they could load UCSD Pascal as well.

Applesoft BASIC did not come with graphics commands built in. The Apple Programmers Aids #1 ROM (a separate product) provided hi-res graphics commands, sound commands, and the sweet16 interpreter.

 

Applesoft II only came built in ROM from the Apple II+ (1979) on, at which point some of the Programmers Aids features were built in. Applesoft and Applesoft II are so different from other Microsoft BASICs because they follow some conventions from the Programmer's Aids and Integer BASIC for partial backwards compatibility.

 

I couldn't find anything about graphics commands changing but it's possible.

 

It's no surprise that Commodore alone out of these had no graphics capabilities on their Commodore PET with PET BASIC V1.0, which was later extended to PET BASIC V2.0. Later on, a graphics board was released for the PET, but I don't know how anyone was supposed to use it. This PET BASIC V2.0 was just ported to the Commodore VIC-20 and Commodore 64. There were control codes that could be embedded in PRINT statements to set text colour, but that's all. These control codes continued in the PET tradition where you had to type PRINT "[inverse heart]" to clear the screen, instead of CLS, or HOME on the Apple II. Commodore eventually wrote a command called SCNCLR in more than one of their later BASICs, such as on cartridge for the VIC-20 and/or C64, on ROM for the Commodore 16 and Commodore Plus 4 flops, then finally on the Commodore 128, but it was all too little, too late.

I believe Commodore bought BASIC for the PET from Microsoft, with the rights. I don't think Microsoft's terms were as reasonable by the time the VIC 20 and C64 came out and since CBM already owned PET BASIC, that's what you got. Once Commodore's computer division took off (due to those 2 machines) they had enough staff to enhance their BASIC.

 

Apple had Microsoft tailor Applesoft and Applesoft II for partial compatibility with Integer BASIC and the Programmer's Tools. If WOZ hadn't written the Programmer's Tools, you probably wouldn't have seen graphics in Applesoft II either.

 

Later on, I bought an Amiga, but this wasn't even designed by Commodore and I thought they were partly making up for past crimes against computing. It was supplied with AmigaBASIC, based on Microsoft BASIC for the Mac, but I think it probably had some extra commands for sprites and bobs. BASIC programming wasn't encouraged enough on the Amiga, though.

The Amiga originally had a different BASIC but it was buggy and abandoned for Microsoft. (AC/BASIC?)

 

Microsoft BASIC for the Amiga supposedly did some bad things with "unused address bits". It was a 68000 only product. Once you actually have a CPU that uses those address bits you end up with a lot of Guru Meditation Numbers (crash). Rather than have Microsoft rewrite BASIC, it was dropped.

Too bad, because that pretty much signaled the death of interpreted BASICs being included with machines.

 

AmigaBASIC was actually quite powerful and you could do pretty much anything you could do in another language, just slower.

Absoft made a pretty good compiler for AmigaBASIC btw.

Edited April 30, 2012 by JamesD