Live data from Hacker News

The original source code of Microsoft GW-BASIC from 1983

devblogs.microsoft.com

11–20 of 272 posts

Re: The original source code of Microsoft GW-BASIC from 1983

#11
post #4

Oh, interesting. I wonder what implications this will have for the MS Basic disassembly project: https://github.com/mist64/msbasic

While it might initially feel like a downer, it would still be quite educational on its own to go through the code comparing what they came up with in the disassembly in light of the real deal being now published.

There would probably be a few "Ah Hah!" moments for code that stumped them, and lessons to be learned on any particular errors they made.

Re: The original source code of Microsoft GW-BASIC from 1983

#13

For more information on why this happened check out Richard's blog post: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/microsoft-open-so...

> (Alas, sorry, we’re unable to open-source the ISA translator.)

> Alas, we’re unable to provide sources for these ports and/or customizations.

I wonder why. (I guess it might involve code licensed from third parties, co-developed and jointly owned with OEM vendors, or unclear provenance of IP.)

I wonder if it will ever change. I hope one day it does.

One of these days (probably long after I'm dead) the copyright will expire. I hope the source code hasn't been lost by then. (Sadly, there's a decent chance it will have been.)

Re: The original source code of Microsoft GW-BASIC from 1983

#14
post #6

This is great! But it makes me think that Microsoft need to add a BASIC compiler as standard in all Windows distributions. They did that Small Basic thing a while back, but it was too encumbered in .NET-isms, a kind of Visual Basic .NET lite. It would be great if there was just a easy to understand BASIC that you could hack away with that could produce interesting programs without the .NET cruft or the barrier that i…

It's too bad Microsoft QuickBASIC isn't a thing anymore. Who didn't love GORILLAS.BAS?

Re: The original source code of Microsoft GW-BASIC from 1983

#16
post #11
post #4

Oh, interesting. I wonder what implications this will have for the MS Basic disassembly project: https://github.com/mist64/msbasic

While it might initially feel like a downer, it would still be quite educational on its own to go through the code comparing what they came up with in the disassembly in light of the real deal being now published. There would probably be a few "Ah Hah!" moments for code that stumped them, and lessons to be learned on any particular errors they made.

[deleted]

Re: The original source code of Microsoft GW-BASIC from 1983

#18
post #11
post #4

Oh, interesting. I wonder what implications this will have for the MS Basic disassembly project: https://github.com/mist64/msbasic

While it might initially feel like a downer, it would still be quite educational on its own to go through the code comparing what they came up with in the disassembly in light of the real deal being now published. There would probably be a few "Ah Hah!" moments for code that stumped them, and lessons to be learned on any particular errors they made.

They are different. That project is disassembling Microsoft BASIC for 6502. What Microsoft has just open sourced is their BASIC for 8086. Two separate codebases, although they have some commonalities. (As the MS blog post mentions, they kept master source in some kind of abstract assembly which could then be automatically translated into specific machine's assembly language, but then I believe there were manual additions to the assembly code after translation.)

Re: The original source code of Microsoft GW-BASIC from 1983

#19
post #4

Oh, interesting. I wonder what implications this will have for the MS Basic disassembly project: https://github.com/mist64/msbasic

Roughly none, I would guess. I can't imagine there are any patents expressed in the actual MS code, and the MIT and 2 clause BSD licenses are virtually identical.
Post reply on HN