Live data from Hacker News

The original source code of Microsoft GW-BASIC from 1983

devblogs.microsoft.com

61–70 of 272 posts

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

#61
post #33
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…

C# and .net core don't have as much cruft, and the simple dev environment in code or visual studio are invaluable - especially the debuggers which are imo one of the most important learning tools.

Argueably MS already provide a complete language pre-installed in PowerShell. However would be nice if they more of a beginners IDE for simple programming.

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

#62
post #56

The funny thing about this announcement is that a week ago I just found my old QBASIC textbook that I learned how to program with back in 1998. QBASIC was my very first programming language; I was a nine year old kid who loved computers and would read anything computer-related that was available, including my mom's textbooks (she was returning to college at the time and took some courses on computing and applications…

QBASIC was also my first programming language. Learned it my Senior year in high school computer programming class back in 1995.

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

#63

Wow, what a blast from the past. I learned to program with BASICA.EXE and GW-BASIC as a kid in the late 80's. I just noticed that microsoft has also released the source to MS-DOS 2.0: https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS I don't think I ever imagined that I'd be able to "look behind the curtain" like this, let alone that Microsoft would come to embrace open source. From there I moved on to Turbo Pascal 3.0, and then B…

BASICA.COM :)

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

#65
post #24

GWBasic was good resource to get into programming world during my teenage. Now I want to teach coding to my 10 years old son. Will you still recommend GWBASIC/Quick basic or Python or other languages for kids?

I learned BASIC as a kid (first on a mainframe terminal with line numbers), and use Python today. I think the language is not as important as other issues:

1. Computers are so much more advanced now, that the obvious gap between beginner and commercial software is vast. This can be discouraging. When I learned BASIC, I could write programs that didn't look any more crappy than typical commercial software, even if there was a performance gap.

2. There's more magic involved today, meaning that when you run into an obstacle, you wave a wand and a library or stackoverflow post magically appears. To do something in the old BASIC, you had to figure out a way to compose it out of the 13 keywords that you had already learned. So you were forced to think about algorithms, right off the bat.

3. You were closer to the hardware, which was more exciting if you were interested in things. I could kinda explain what the computer was actually doing. I loved math as a kid, but I also loved electronics. The day that I programmed a thing to do something (maybe just a blinking LED) was like the rapture for me.

What's closest to the old experience for me is not a language, but a thing: A microcontroller board. Out of the box, it has no GUI, so no expectations for what "cool" software looks like. And you can make it do things that have an immediate sensory effect. You can now put CircuitPython on a Teensy 4.0 board, and sidestep having to learn C, at least for a while. And your son can really own the thing that he's programming.

As a minor suggestion, you can also get closer to the computer and to programming by making more use of the command terminal when showing your son how to do things.

A final word, don't be heartbroken if it doesn't click. It might not. This is also something parents are told when their kids start music lessons.

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

#68

From a comment in the source > ORIGINALLY WRITTEN ON THE PDP-10 FROM FEBRUARY 9 TO APRIL 9 1975 Wow! I did not realize that it was written so quickly. Two months that literally changed the PC landscape forever.

For one person working 8 hours a day, that's roughly one line of assembly language per minute. If you know assembly language, and you know the algorithms you're implementing, that doesn't seem especially fast.

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

#69

Wow, what a blast from the past. I learned to program with BASICA.EXE and GW-BASIC as a kid in the late 80's. I just noticed that microsoft has also released the source to MS-DOS 2.0: https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS I don't think I ever imagined that I'd be able to "look behind the curtain" like this, let alone that Microsoft would come to embrace open source. From there I moved on to Turbo Pascal 3.0, and then B…

Similar story, learned to program using GWBASIC and loved figuring out how to recreate Conway's Game of Life, fern fractals, etc on my own. Though 25 years later can't pass FAANG whiteboard interviews with just an EE degree!

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

#70
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 addit…

I wonder if the master source was that abstract, the original Microsoft BASIC was for the 8080, and there were several 8080 -> 8086 source translators. TRANS.COM shipped with 86-DOS before it became Microsoft MS-DOS. https://tech-insider.org/personal-computers/research/acrobat...
Post reply on HN