DanBoris Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 Definitely GFA Basic. I started using it on the Atari ST and then moved to the PC version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
00WReX Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 Locomotive BASIC on the Amstrad CPC and Plus series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesD Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 On 7/14/2020 at 7:53 PM, bluejay said: My coco doesn't have an edit command, or at least none that I know of. Commodore machines did not have a true full screen editor with copying and pasting and searching; and the only computer that I know of that has such a function are the Tandy portables. On 7/14/2020 at 8:45 PM, Casey said: If you read contemporary discussions of these 8-bit machines, the Commodore and Atari machines have what was called a full screen editor. What we think of today as a full screen editor with search and replace is not what they were referring to back in the day. The Coco has an EDIT command. It’s actually very full featured. On 7/14/2020 at 9:01 PM, bluejay said: That's weird. Last time i tried i got a big fat ?SN ERROR. Ayy, I tried it now and it works! non-extended BASIC doesn't have EDIT, perhaps you upgraded it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejay Posted July 21, 2020 Author Share Posted July 21, 2020 (edited) 31 minutes ago, JamesD said: non-extended BASIC doesn't have EDIT, perhaps you upgraded it? I think I misread a ?UL ERROR(I think thats the error you get when you type EDIT without the line number) for a ?SN ERROR. It was always a Extended 16k CoCo 2. Edited July 21, 2020 by bluejay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omega-TI Posted August 11, 2020 Share Posted August 11, 2020 Mine was GWBASIC/BASICA for the PC. I do not even remember how I used to do as it's been so long ago, but I used to design my ANSI graphic screens to load with BASIC for a more "professional look" to my programs. Since the PC was relatively fast and you could access BASIC directly from the DOS it was great for a guy like me who never got into assembly language programming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Muddyfunster Posted September 13, 2020 Share Posted September 13, 2020 BBC Basic was great and was also one of the fastest interpreted BASIC's for the 8bits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desiv Posted September 16, 2020 Share Posted September 16, 2020 For me, it was the older Commodore BASICs for the Vic-20 and C64. And yes, I know all about their weaknesses. But this is about my favorite, and that is the one I used. I loved the editing on the screen. And while it didn't have any graphics/sound commands, I was mostly writing utilities back then so it didn't bother me. Now, if it had included graphics / sound commands, would I have written BASIC programs that had graphics and sound? Did I let the limitations of the BASIC define my BASIC programming??? Probably. But I didn't think of it that way back then. When I got to the Amiga, I didn't like the non-line numbered BASIC. Figured if I was going to do non-line numbered programming, I'd do something else. So I played with Modula II and then jumped to C. On the PC, I mostly used Pascal and dBase/Foxbase. Didn't do much (anything?) with PC BASIC... (I do remember playing a bit with the "motor" command just because I though that relay was fascinating, but never did anything with it..) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesD Posted September 17, 2020 Share Posted September 17, 2020 One drawback to the C64 full screen editor, is that it limited line lengths. It can get ugly looking, but you can pack 256(?) characters onto a line on most TRS-80s. The MC-10 doesn't have an editor, but I think the line buffer is 128 characters. Less lines means less memory needed, the interpreter has to deal with fewer line changes, and it doesn't have to search through as many lines for GOTO, or GOSUB, so it's faster. Each line has the overhead of 5 bytes. Two for the line # as an integer, two for the pointer to the next line, and one for the line terminator. If you have a 1000 line program for the C64, and it can fit in 750 lines on a TRS-80 by using longer lines, then it saves 250*5=1250 bytes. Applesoft II BASIC does something other Microsoft BASICs don't. It removes spaces during tokenization. This speed up the interpreter slightly. When you list the program, it inserts spaces around tokens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wierd_w Posted September 17, 2020 Share Posted September 17, 2020 I admit that I am most familiar with MS Quickbasic. It has some useful features, but it is sorely lacking in others. (No microsoft, PSET based PUT is not a substitute for having a proper sprite routine!!. I DO appreciate having MODE X though.) "Which you like best" or worse yet, "which is best?", is very subjective. Best for what purpose? Because each of those console BASIC implementations were just as "intended role" biased as the computers they ran on. As a pixel artist, (who does not really find pleasure in having to beat his head against walls to overcome engineering choices of yesteryear) I do not favor most 8bit BASIC implementations' graphic routines. I need at least 4 simultaneous colors to make anything really nice (without going down a pyrrhic pit of despair to accomplish anyway), and most 8bit BASIC implementations did not want to offer that. the holy grail in a BASIC implementation for me, would be one that offers true 2, 4, 8, 16, 64, and 256 color modes, with hardware sprites (or at the very least, quality software abstraction that is fast), and a decent sound generator. However, if you ask somebody that did math heavy things, they would favor some other basic. (maybe one that does better recursion.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesD Posted September 17, 2020 Share Posted September 17, 2020 40 minutes ago, JamesD said: ... Each line has the overhead of 5 bytes. Two for the line # as an integer, two for the pointer to the next line, and one for the line terminator. ... FWIW, the 6803, and 6809 are faster per MHz for a lot of interpreter operations due to the 16 bit index & data register support. One of those things is searching for a line #, so the 6502 might benefit more from packing more on a line. Searching for a line # in GOTO or GOSUB on 6803 LE3BB ldd ,X ; check link to the next line beq LE3C9 ; return with carry set if end of program ldd BINVAL ; D = target line number subd 2,X ; subtract line number being looked at bls LE3CA ; branch if found (carry clear) or surpassed (carry set) ldx ,X ; point X to next line bra LE3BB ; keep searching LE3C9 sec ; set carry to indicate 'Not Found' LE3CA stx SRCPTR ; save address of last line checked rts ; return This is the 6502 version FL1 ldy #$01 ;search from (X,A) sta LOWTR stx LOWTR+1 lda (LOWTR),y beq LD647 ;end of program, and not found iny iny lda LINNUM+1 cmp (LOWTR),y bcc RTS_1 ;if not found beq LD635 dey bne LD63E LD635 lda LINNUM dey cmp (LOWTR),y bcc RTS_1 ;past line, not found beq RTS_1 ;if found LD63E dey lda (LOWTR),y tax dey lda (LOWTR),y bcs FL1 ;always LD647 clc ;return carry=0 RTS_1 rts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.