On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, Dave G4UGM wrote:
Its almost as much deciding which Basics are really
Basics as it is deciding
which computers are Mainframes, Mid-Range or MiniComputers....
I also guess its ironic that Microsoft kind of started with Basic ....
And whilst the latest
VB.Net isn't any more basic that C++ is C what about
Visual Basic for DOS was that "Basic". Going back further was QuickBasic a
Basic?
P.S. if you do have an MS Windows or Linux PC and yearn for that retro
feeling you can always run GWBASIC in DosBox.....
Decades after abandoning their progeny, Kurtz and Kemeny were SHOCKED, and
I mean SHOCKED, at what they saw in "street BASIC". HOW THE HELL could
they claim that they "never knew" what it had become??!? So, they tried
to force a return to their fundamentalist attitudes with "TRUE BASIC".
But, for the majority, Microsoft BASIC 4.5 defined BASIC. Even 5.0 was a
question. Then, a new generation grew up around TRS80, Applesoft,
Commodore, and eventually PC BASIC. Microsoft "owned" BASIC, and even
Gordon Eubank's CBASIC couldn't break in.
GW-BASIC was created as a substitute for the ROM requirement of MS/IBM
BASICA. Now, Microsoft claims that they "don't remember" what GW stood
for!! (It used to stand for "Gee Whiz".). They've even tried to suggest
that maybe it stood for "Gates, William"!
Yeah, the computer industry lost its sense of humor and stopped being fun
when companies such as "INTERGALACTIC DR", "Thinker-Toys" and
"Kentucky
Fried Computer" changed their names.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at
xenosoft.com