BASIC (Was: Reading HP2000 tapes

[Paul Berger]

I would think that any interpreted BASIC would do this or for that 
matter any interpreted language except maybe for APL which is pretty 
much written with tokens anyway.  One other exception I can think of is 
perl  which is stored as source text.  Saving in tokenized form was good 
for to reasons, it saved storage space, both in memory and on mass 
storage and when you loaded the program it was ready to go.

Paul.


On 2018-07-18 2:00 PM, Curious Marc via cctalk wrote:
> And so does the HP 85.
> Marc
>
>> On Jul 17, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Brent Hilpert via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
>>
>> The HP9830 (1972) with it's ROM'ed BASIC works this way.
>> LIST produces a 'cleaned up' version of the source code.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 2018-Jul-17, at 1:21 PM, Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk wrote:
>>>
>>> I should also mention that for the IBM S/23, once the BASIC program is entered, the original
>>> source is discarded and only the tokenized code remains (comments are retained as-is).   The
>>> LIST command runs a de-tokenizer and reconstructs the original source (well close to it anyway).
>>>
>>> TTFN - Guy
>>>
>>>> On Jul 17, 2018, at 12:33 PM, John Foust via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> At 03:53 PM 7/14/2018, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2018, Ed Sharpe via cctalk wrote:
>>>>>> isn't the  basic  programs  also stored in tokinized  forms!?!?
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>> And the tokens are not the same between different brand implementations, or even between different versions, such as MBASIC 4 and MBASIC 5.
>>>>> http://fileformats.archiveteam.org/wiki/Tokenized_BASIC
>>>> I remember a detokenizer for RSTS BASIC-PLUS that's not on that list.
>>>>
>>>> I think it was called a "decompiler" though.  Seemed like magic at the time.
>>>>
>>>> Googling reveals "You may be remembering the BASIC PLUS
>>>> decompiler under RSTS.  RSTS BASIC PLUS was interpreted from "push-pop" code.
>>>> The symbol table was available in the compiled file, and the correspondence
>>>> between push-pop operations and BASIC PLUS source was very close, so you
>>>> could get back very reasonable code."
>>>>
>>>> And our previous discussion of it a decade ago:
>>>>
>>>> https://marc.info/?l=classiccmp&m=121804804023540&w=2
>>>>
>>>> - John
>>>>