9 Sep
2014
9 Sep
'14
3:57 a.m.
On Sep 8, 2014, at 4:21 PM, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
Whose BASIC? Is M$ Visual BASIC a BASIC? I don't
think anyone but Microsoft really thinks so.
TrueBASIC? CBASIC? BASIC-E?
Just remember -- regardless of which BASIC you're talking about. . . .
Basic-Plus under RSTS/E transcends them all. . . .
;-)
9 Sep
9 Sep
8:29 a.m.
On Tue, 9 Sep 2014 07:57:02 -0400
Tim Thompson <tiggerlasv at aim.com> wrote:
On Sep 8, 2014, at 4:21 PM, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
Agreed! I managed the "Quant" group at Fidelity for years on an 11/70
running RSTS/E. We wrote almost all of our market models (such as
Dividend Discount, Bond Arbitrage, etc.) in BASIC-PLUS/BASIC-PLUS 2.
At that time we were running about $7B under management (when a billion
was a lot of money ;)
Whose BASIC? Is M$ Visual BASIC a BASIC? I
don't think anyone but
Microsoft really thinks so. TrueBASIC? CBASIC? BASIC-E?
Just remember -- regardless of which BASIC you're talking about. . . .
Basic-Plus under RSTS/E transcends them all. . . . ;-)
:)
Lyle
--
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
http://bickleywest.com
"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"
10:11 a.m.
On 09/09/2014 04:57 AM, Tim Thompson wrote:
Just remember -- regardless of which BASIC you're
talking about. . . .
Basic-Plus under RSTS/E transcends them all. . . .
No, you need to be running DTSS on a GE Datanet 30 front-ending a GE
235. It's worth noting that 1964 BASIC probably could not compete in
the subject contest because it used TTY for I/O (or card reader and line
printer for CARDBASIC).
--Chuck
18 Sep
18 Sep
6:07 a.m.
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 07:57:02AM -0400, Tim Thompson wrote:
On Sep 8, 2014, at 4:21 PM, Chuck Guzis <cclist at
sydex.com> wrote:
Wikipedia's page on it suggests it was less powerful than Acorn's BBC BASIC!
You should have seen some of the fugly hacks I did in that language when I
didn't know better...
Whose BASIC? Is M$ Visual BASIC a BASIC? I
don't think anyone but Microsoft really thinks so.
TrueBASIC? CBASIC? BASIC-E?
Just remember -- regardless of which BASIC you're
talking about. . . .
Basic-Plus under RSTS/E transcends them all. . . . 
3:10 p.m.
On 9/18/2014 2:17 PM, Tony Duell wrote:
Isn't that true of just about any BASIC other than possibly BASIC-09
(which had user defined types, soemthing that BBC BASIC didn't).
-tony
I did not play with Basic much,but graphics and sound was pushed and
claiming it was better than the other brand* in many cases.
Ben.
* In truth all flavors from the same *evil Empire*.
Basic-Plus under RSTS/E transcends them all. . . .
Wikipedia's page on it suggests it was less powerful than Acorn's BBC BASIC!
4:06 p.m.
Tony Duell asked:
Isn't that true of just about any BASIC other than possibly BASIC-09
(which had user defined types, soemthing that BBC BASIC didn't).
My impression is that ZGrass (a.k.a. SuperBasic) was the most powerful
Basic ever.
-- Jecel
Basic-Plus under RSTS/E transcends them all. . . .
Wikipedia's page on it suggests it was less powerful than Acorn's BBC BASIC!
4:22 p.m.
On 18/09/14 10:07 AM, Peter Corlett wrote:
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 07:57:02AM -0400, Tim Thompson
wrote:
Yeah, as a longtime user of BBC BASIC I was like: Hmmmmmmmmmmm
--Toby
On Sep 8, 2014, at 4:21 PM, Chuck Guzis
<cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
Wikipedia's page on it suggests it was less powerful than Acorn's BBC BASIC!
Whose BASIC? Is M$ Visual BASIC a BASIC? I
don't think anyone but Microsoft really thinks so.
TrueBASIC? CBASIC? BASIC-E?
Just remember -- regardless of which BASIC you're
talking about. . . .
Basic-Plus under RSTS/E transcends them all. . . . You should have seen some of the fugly hacks I did in
that language when I
didn't know better...
5:47 p.m.
Just remember -- regardless of which BASIC you're
talking about. . . .
Basic-Plus under RSTS/E transcends them all. . . .
Wikipedia's page on it suggests it was less powerful than Acorn's BBC BASIC!
7:29 p.m.
On 09/18/2014 06:47 PM, Roe Peterson wrote:
Yeah, as a longtime user of BBC BASIC I was like: Hmmmmmmmmmmm
I haven't done a feature comparison, but there was an Extended basic
plus for RSTS that was damn near structured. Back in the day at the
University of Regina, a computerman named Kim Birchard wrote a
complete (and really good) version of super Star Trek with only 11
line numbers...
Line numbers in BASIC originally served dual purposes--for editing as
well as targets of code references, so the lack of line numbers when a
full-screen editor or external editor is being used is no big deal.
Lots of later BASICs (BASIC-E, CBASIC, Star BASIC) made them optional
and even allowed for alphanumeric labels.
Has anyone compared the "powerful" basics with 1962 "Card BASIC"?
There were also interactive versions of FORTRAN back in the 1960s as
well. Anyone remember IITRAN and other similar efforts?
--Chuck
Just remember -- regardless of which BASIC you're
talking
about. . . . Basic-Plus under RSTS/E transcends them all. . .
.
Wikipedia's page on it suggests it was less powerful than Acorn's
BBC BASIC! 
19 Sep
19 Sep
6:57 a.m.
On Sep 18, 2014, at 9:47 PM, Roe Peterson <roeapeterson at gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, as a longtime user of BBC BASIC I was like: Hmmmmmmmmmmm
I haven't done a feature comparison, but there was an Extended basic plus for RSTS
that was damn near structured. Back in the day at the University of Regina, a computerman
named Kim Birchard wrote a complete (and really good) version of super Star Trek with only
11 line numbers?
That sounds more like an existence proof than a sensible way of coding. I?ve written lots
of BASIC-Plus code but it would never have occurred to me or my colleagues to attempt such
a thing, or to talk about it as if it were something worthwhile.
That said, B+ was an excellent implementation of a 1970s era BASIC. Since it was designed
for timesharing and character terminals, it didn?t do graphics, or sound, or other PCish
things.
paul
Just remember -- regardless of which BASIC you're
talking about. . . .
Basic-Plus under RSTS/E transcends them all. . . .
Wikipedia's page on it suggests it was less powerful than Acorn's BBC BASIC!
3578
days inactive
3588
days old
10 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
abuse＠cabal.org.uk -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
cclist＠sydex.com -
jecel＠merlintec.com -
lbickley＠bickleywest.com -
paulkoning＠comcast.net -
roeapeterson＠gmail.com -
tiggerlasv＠aim.com -
toby＠telegraphics.com.au