<If someone's looking for a BASIC to run on their SBC, I think I'd go
<with one of the Tiny BASIC's out there myself that comes with sources.
<Oak.oakland.edu or another good old Simtel mirror would be a good place
<to start a search.
MSbasic is ok but there were better. Personally the PTbasic and NS* were
better featured for their size.
the dunfields.com site has a few small Basics as well to look at.
Allison
Yes, that's true, but it's through no action or inaction (I hesitate to say
"fault") of you're own that you're all still in one piece.
I'd agree that allowing the masses the freedom to kill or maim themselves or
others is probably sound Darwin theory, the fact that people, despite their
poor judgement are left to boast about having survived despite the cited
obviously imprudent actions is adequate evidence that sound judgement isn't
a requirement for survival. The fact that my two boys, neither of whom was
either taught or allowed to engage in such actions are still around also
serves to point that out.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Christopher Finney <af-list(a)wfi-inc.com>
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Date: Thursday, February 10, 2000 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: Dumpster stories!
>
>
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, John Wilson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 06:35:26PM -0000, Eric Smith wrote:
>> > I suppose people are going to think I'm a jerk for saying such a thing,
>> > but IMNSHO the tragedy here isn't that the kids were killed, but that
>> > they hadn't been taught not to do such things.
>>
>> I agree... My parents covered all this stuff -- they told us not to dig
inside
>> snowbanks because a plow might come, we all wore seat belts way before
there
>> was a law (bicycle helmets too), our parents strictly enforced what we
could
>
>Never a bicycle helmet, threw heavy rocks on the ice to see if it would
>break (then made the biggest kid go out there first), built forts in
>snowplow drifts, threw rocks at bees nests, climbed high trees, had B-B
>gun fights, etc. Had enough money to buy bottle rockets and firecrackers.
>Made lawn-chair pipe bombs with pyrodex. So did all of my friends.
>
>We're still alive, and each of us still have 10 fingers and two eyes
>apiece.
>
No, I don't get the point.
The TINY BASIC with which I worked back in the mid-'70's required more ascii
because it was necessary to build the features normally contained in the
"full-up" version.
If one were to have access to the source code for the interpreter, one could
then migrate various function classes to external libraries which would be
incorporated into the ROM set only if they were needed. If you didn't need
the FP library or the high-precision math library, or the file I/O library,
you'd simply leave it out. However, it's MUCH easier to add enough ROM code
space by using a couple already present sockets, if you do need string
processing or floating point functions, it's MUCH easier to use them within
the framework of BASIC than to roll-yer-own implementation of a public
domain FP package. If you put the ascii basic code in one ROM and put the
interpreter in another, it makes a big difference whether you use TINY basic
rather than a product like MSBasic v5.11.
TINY is OK for some applications, but it doesn't do a lot of the nie things
the "real" basic does. That's why you have to use more code to build the
functions. If you use them often, these little functions can become large
and burdensome. The BASIC source, meaning the stuff you write and feed to
the interpreter, is often MUCH easier to fit into a small system's ROM for a
given task than the equivalent TINY BASIC implementation simply because it's
less verbose than Tiny BASIC code for the same task. YMMV, of course, but
IF you write an interface to an LCD so that PRINT uses it, just being able
enter '?' as a token already saves space. Of course, if you happened to
have a tokenizer for the basic, or, for that matter, TINY BASIC, you'll save
space. Unfortunately, I've never had a tokenized TINY BASIC.
That, basically, (no pun intended) is the reason a REAL source for a REAL
basic interpreter would be interesting. After all, that's one of the
features that's made FORTH as popular as it is.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: CLASSICCMP(a)trailing-edge.com <CLASSICCMP(a)trailing-edge.com>
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: Source code for BASIC
>>Just exactly why would you recommend a TINY BASIC as opposed to a full-up
>>interpreter? Most SBC's support huge amounts of RAM, far in excess of
what
>>the basic interpreter should require.
>
>Heck, we can get SBC's of just a few square inches with a Pentium Pro, 128
>Mbytes of RAM, SVGA output, and a hard drive interface, why not just
install
>Windows NT on the SBC so you can run the latest and greatest Visual
BASIC++++?
>
>Well, I took your argument there a little too far, but I hope you get the
>point: Use the tools appropriate to the job. And for most SBC
applications,
>the floating point capabilities and libraries as well as the file I/O
>facilities of a "full-up" BASIC are overkill. OTOH most Tiny Basic
>implementations are perfect for the bit-banging and input/output that a
>SBC is often called upon to do.
>
>(And yes, I know of other cases where Windows NT and 128 Mbytes of RAM on
>the SBC are appropriate, but I don't think any of us want to go down that
>road!)
>
>--
> Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
> Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
> 7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
> Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
>
>Just exactly why would you recommend a TINY BASIC as opposed to a full-up
>interpreter? Most SBC's support huge amounts of RAM, far in excess of what
>the basic interpreter should require.
Heck, we can get SBC's of just a few square inches with a Pentium Pro, 128
Mbytes of RAM, SVGA output, and a hard drive interface, why not just install
Windows NT on the SBC so you can run the latest and greatest Visual BASIC++++?
Well, I took your argument there a little too far, but I hope you get the
point: Use the tools appropriate to the job. And for most SBC applications,
the floating point capabilities and libraries as well as the file I/O
facilities of a "full-up" BASIC are overkill. OTOH most Tiny Basic
implementations are perfect for the bit-banging and input/output that a
SBC is often called upon to do.
(And yes, I know of other cases where Windows NT and 128 Mbytes of RAM on
the SBC are appropriate, but I don't think any of us want to go down that
road!)
--
Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
Just exactly why would you recommend a TINY BASIC as opposed to a full-up
interpreter? Most SBC's support huge amounts of RAM, far in excess of what
the basic interpreter should require.
My earliest Intel SBC's have room for 4 24-pin EPROMs, each of which can
hold 4K, and, if you use a jumpering arrangement derived from the schematic
rather than from the manual, you can use the 8K parts from MOT. That gives
you 32KB. Isn't that enough to support a customized version of the BASIC
interpreter in addition to the required driver code? You do have to modify
the I/O hooks to fit into your SBC, but you'd have to do that anyway,
wouldn't you? There are some public-domain CP/M-compatible I/O handlers
which use some of the CP/M i/o calls. Naturally, it's a lot of work, but
you can do it, given you have the source code.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: CLASSICCMP(a)trailing-edge.com <CLASSICCMP(a)trailing-edge.com>
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 11:48 AM
Subject: RE: Source code for BASIC
>>Tim Shoppa mentioned having some early MS source on AFC.
>>What exactly do you have, Tim?
>
>I've got MBASIC 5.11 sources. This is relatively late in
>MBASIC's life (about the time it was being ported to the 8086) but there
>are comments in there referring back to 1975.
>
>I've also got home-grown disassemblies of several other Microsoft products
from
>the late 1970's, though these are hardly "official".
>
>If someone's looking for a BASIC to run on their SBC, I think I'd go
>with one of the Tiny BASIC's out there myself that comes with sources.
>Oak.oakland.edu or another good old Simtel mirror would be a good place
>to start a search.
>
>--
> Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
> Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
> 7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
> Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
>
On February 16, Mark Tapley wrote:
> Howdy. I'm utterly inactive but I do actually have (had? I'd better
> check, may have expired) technician KB6UOH.
> My wife was listening to me struggling to work up to 5 WPM code,
> using our Mac Plus (am I on-topic now?) as a random code generator. She
> thought it sounded kind of neat, tried it out, and was doing 10 WPM in a
> few days. (grrrr!). On the way down to the test I taught her Ohm's law and
> a few frequencies and talked her into taking the test. She took clean code
> (and the volunteers there were begging her to try out the general code
> test) and squeaked by the multiple-choice stuff and got license KB6UOI
> (awww, how sweet, consecutive numbers...).
> Now if we'd just get a radio and get on the air.....
She thought CW sounded neat? Does she have a sister? ;)
-Dave McGuire
So . . . where did this set of MBASIC v5.11 sources turn up for you to snag?
Are the associated files available?
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: CLASSICCMP(a)trailing-edge.com <CLASSICCMP(a)trailing-edge.com>
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 11:48 AM
Subject: RE: Source code for BASIC
>>Tim Shoppa mentioned having some early MS source on AFC.
>>What exactly do you have, Tim?
>
>I've got MBASIC 5.11 sources. This is relatively late in
>MBASIC's life (about the time it was being ported to the 8086) but there
>are comments in there referring back to 1975.
>
>I've also got home-grown disassemblies of several other Microsoft products
from
>the late 1970's, though these are hardly "official".
>
>If someone's looking for a BASIC to run on their SBC, I think I'd go
>with one of the Tiny BASIC's out there myself that comes with sources.
>Oak.oakland.edu or another good old Simtel mirror would be a good place
>to start a search.
>
>--
> Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
> Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
> 7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
> Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
>
>Tim Shoppa mentioned having some early MS source on AFC.
>What exactly do you have, Tim?
I've got MBASIC 5.11 sources. This is relatively late in
MBASIC's life (about the time it was being ported to the 8086) but there
are comments in there referring back to 1975.
I've also got home-grown disassemblies of several other Microsoft products from
the late 1970's, though these are hardly "official".
If someone's looking for a BASIC to run on their SBC, I think I'd go
with one of the Tiny BASIC's out there myself that comes with sources.
Oak.oakland.edu or another good old Simtel mirror would be a good place
to start a search.
--
Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
"> I just acquired Microsoft 8K basic in ROM for OSI on paper
> tape.
Tim Shoppa mentioned having some early MS source on AFC.
What exactly do you have, Tim?
"
On a related note, I've got source code here to some (many? most?) of the early Microsoft products -
you know, things like MBASIC, etc., that say at the top:
.TITLE BASIC Mpu 8080/8085/Z80/8086 (5.11) Bill Gates/Paul Allen
INCLUDE BASIC.MAC
;SUBTTL VERSION 5.11 -- NOT MANY FEATURES TO GO
;COPYRIGHT 1975 BILL GATES AND PAUL ALLEN
;BILL GATES WROTE A LOT OF STUFF
;PAUL ALLEN WROTE OTHER STUFF AND FAST CODE
;MONTE DAVIDOFF WROTE THE MATH PACKAGE
;ORIGINALLY WRITTEN ON THE PDP-10 FROM
;FEBRUARY 9 TO APRIL 9 1975
"
