12 May
1999
12 May
'99
6:03 a.m.
--- "Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" <cisin(a)xenosoft.com> wrote:
So, it's true!? There really are new dialects of
BASIC without
line numbers!
Not only BASIC without line numbers, but *classic* era BASIC - AmigaDOS 1.1
shipped in 1986 with AmigaBasic (not the older ABasic of which I know little)
and it does not require line numbers.
-ethan
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com
12 May
12 May
6:40 a.m.
Once upon a midnight dreary, Ethan Dicks had spoken clearly:
--- "Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)"
<cisin(a)xenosoft.com> wrote:
Like was mentioned on this list once before... Basic09 for OS-9... 1981 or
82, wasn't it?
Also, wasn't there was a Basic for the Mac when it first came out in '84
that had no line numbers?
See ya,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger --- sysadmin, Iceberg Computers
Recycling is good, right??? Ok, so I'll recycle an old .sig.
If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead
disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.
So, it's true!? There really are new
dialects of BASIC without
line numbers!
Not only BASIC without line numbers, but *classic* era BASIC - AmigaDOS 1.1
shipped in 1986 with AmigaBasic (not the older ABasic of which I know little)
and it does not require line numbers. 
8:39 a.m.
> So, it's true!? There really are new
dialects of BASIC without
> line numbers!
Not only BASIC without line numbers, but *classic* era
BASIC - AmigaDOS 1.1
shipped in 1986 with AmigaBasic (not the older ABasic of which I know little)
and it does not require line numbers.
There have been several Basic-alikes (could be only Basic alikes,
or imposters, since true BASIC has to have line numbers) before
(like GFA-BASIC - available not only for the ST, but also PC and
Amiga).
Gruss
H.
--
Stimm gegen SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/de/
Vote against SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/en/
Votez contre le SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/fr/
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
7:59 a.m.
On Wed, 12 May 1999, Hans Franke wrote:
There have been several Basic-alikes (could be only
Basic alikes,
or imposters, since true BASIC has to have line numbers) before
(like GFA-BASIC - available not only for the ST, but also PC and
Amiga).
Hmmm... As I recall, when the folk that created BASIC originally brought
out a 'new' version called "True BASIC" (to combat the MS mutations to
the
language), this newer version was 'line number optional'...
Of course, my memory could be a bit defective in this... Does anyone have
a copy of "True BASIC" that they could check on this?
-jim
---
jimw(a)computergarage.org
The Computer Garage - http://www.computergarage.org
Computer Garage Fax - (503) 646-0174
>> Coming soon to www.computergarage.org - the
CBBS/NW on-line archives
>> Coming to VCF III (2-3 October 1999) - CBBS/NW
live!
13 May
13 May
7:34 a.m.
Line numbers were only "needed" when you didn't have an editor, they
gave one the ability to replace lines in place by reusing their line
numbers. It was quite elegant actually. If you edit your BASIC source
code separately you only need targets for GOTO and GOSUB commands (which
can be numbers or in cases like AmigaBASIC letters). I wrote a version
of BASIC in Java that closely models BASIC-80 (aka Microsoft BASIC) and
its available on my web site (and in a web browser window if you're
patient.)
--Chuck
(http://www.professionals.com/~cmcmanis/)
Ethan Dicks wrote:
Not only BASIC without line numbers, but *classic* era
BASIC - AmigaDOS 1.1
shipped in 1986 with AmigaBasic (not the older ABasic of which I know little)
and it does not require line numbers.
9 a.m.
I remember when I upgraded the ROMs in my C1P
and got a RENUM command. Ah, those were the
days.
Bill Sudbrink
12:52 p.m.
I remember when I upgraded the ROMs in my C1P
and got a RENUM command. Ah, those were the
days.
There were two common tricks that renumber commands never dealt with:
1) storing line numbers in variables and GOTOing or GOSUBing them,
e.g., GOSUB MYSUB
2) computing line numbers at the time of GOTO or GOSUB,
e.g., GOTO (X+3)*35
Did the C1P let you do either of those tricks?
-- Derek
4:03 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 649 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990514/7ef157f8/at…
7:43 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
Are you suprised? To do that is decidedly non-trivial.... Anyway, a lot
of BASICs, including most (all?) Microsoft ones don't allow computed line
numbers like this. ON...GOTO existed, but renumbering that is quite easy
(and was normally done by a renumber command).
No, I'm UNsurprised. I wouldn't expect _any_ renumber program to deal with
the complicated cass. I suppose the problems could be solved, but only by
completely analyzing the programs in the worst case (which is pretty
difficult even now). I just wanted to point out that BASIC line numbers or
renumbering routines have this weakness.
-- Derek
I remember when I upgraded the ROMs in my C1P
and got a RENUM command. Ah, those were the
days.
There were two common tricks that renumber commands never dealt with:
10:32 a.m.
Date sent: Thu, 13 May 1999 09:34:04 -0700
Send reply to: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
From: Chuck McManis <cmcmanis(a)mcmanis.com>
To: "Discussion re-collecting of classic computers"
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: New-fangled languages (was: BASIC
Line numbers were only "needed" when you
didn't have an editor, they
gave one the ability to replace lines in place by reusing their line
numbers. It was quite elegant actually. If you edit your BASIC source
code separately you only need targets for GOTO and GOSUB commands (which
can be numbers or in cases like AmigaBASIC letters). I wrote a version
of BASIC in Java that closely models BASIC-80 (aka Microsoft BASIC) and
its available on my web site (and in a web browser window if you're
patient.)
--Chuck
(http://www.professionals.com/~cmcmanis/)
NEAT!
(I'm just missing peek/pook to browse the internas :))
Gruss
H.
--
Stimm gegen SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/de/
Vote against SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/en/
Votez contre le SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/fr/
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
9197
days inactive
9198
days old
9 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bill＠chipware.com -
cmcmanis＠mcmanis.com -
dpeschel＠u.washington.edu -
ethan_dicks＠yahoo.com -
Hans.Franke＠mch20.sbs.de -
jimw＠agora.rdrop.com -
zmerch＠30below.com