From cisin@xenosoft.com Mon Oct  1 17:35:33 2001
From: cisin@xenosoft.com
To: test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org
Subject: IBM ROM BASIC or lack thereof
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 17:35:33 +0000
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0110011524280.22959-100000@lanshark.lmi.net>
In-Reply-To: <JLEBINJBAPPJLDFMNJENCEIPDCAA.rhblakeman@kih.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7045264515834157909=="

--===============7045264515834157909==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Russ Blakeman wrote:
> Not sure but GW would usually run programs made for BASICA without any
> problems that I ever saw. Of course there's a certain amount of a standard
> to the BASIC language itself that leads to that for most things.

MOST micros used MICROSOFT BASIC, thus leading to a perception of more of
a standard than really existed.  Even those that went with their own BASIC
usually switched to MICROSOFT for the second version (TRS-80 Level I v
Level II (MICROSOFT) BASIC, "INTEGER" v "APPLESOFT" (MICROSOFT), etc.)

But when Kurtz and Kemeny first saw "street BASIC", they were
aghast.  They were so horrified, that they came out with "TRUE BASIC".  

"LET X = 3" DOES help a little bit over "X = 3" towards getting first time
beginners to understand the non-commutative nature of assignement (why you
can't say 3 = X).
 
But after Kurtz and Kemeny created BASIC ("Beginners All purpose Symbolic
Instruction Code") at Dartmouth in the mid 1960s, they NEVER EVEN LOOKED
AT ANY OF THE COMMERCIAL BASICS until the 1980s!  Talk about parental
abandonment!  They abdicated any rights that they might have had towards
it.

--
Grumpy Ol' Fred        cisin(a)xenosoft.com
<A HREF= "http://www.xenosoft.com/dogears" >DogEars</A>

--===============7045264515834157909==--