Why does GitHub say 40 years ago when 1983 is 39 years ago?
Microsoft GW-Basic Interpreter Source Code
11–20 of 101 posts
Re: Microsoft GW-Basic Interpreter Source Code
#12>Will not be modified - please do not submit PR's or request changes Why doesn't github still allow users to deactivate the "pull requests" tab?
Seems to me like better UX as the users are being informed why they can't make pull requests. Of course this could be done differently but I don't have an issue with it.
Re: Microsoft GW-Basic Interpreter Source Code
#13Why does GitHub say 40 years ago when 1983 is 39 years ago?
Wow! They added a markdown formatted code of conduct 40 years ago!!
Re: Microsoft GW-Basic Interpreter Source Code
#14Why does GitHub say 40 years ago when 1983 is 39 years ago?
Wow! They added a markdown formatted code of conduct 40 years ago!!
They even reference "Windows Store app package directories and files"[0]. Very futurist thinking!
[0]: https://github.com/microsoft/GW-BASIC/blob/edf82c2ebf6bfe099...
Re: Microsoft GW-Basic Interpreter Source Code
#15All of the "comments are useless because they get out of date" folks should look at this code, which is still comprehensible 40 years later because of the comments.
Well, they get out of date because the code around it changes. If the code doesn't change either...
I do agree with you though that commenting is a good thing.
Re: Microsoft GW-Basic Interpreter Source Code
#16>Will not be modified - please do not submit PR's or request changes Why doesn't github still allow users to deactivate the "pull requests" tab?
[deleted]
Re: Microsoft GW-Basic Interpreter Source Code
#17Like so many, I gathered my first experiences with programming in Basic (or is it BASIC?). My first computer was a Commodore 128, and my mother sent to a week-long programming course that for some reason the local Sparkasse (quasi-public bank in Germany) held over the Easter holidays And here we used PCs running DOS, so I almost certainly did my first baby steps programming using GW-BASIC. Little did I know the Basic…
It is supposed to be "BASIC", from Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code no less [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC
I knew that it used to stand for that (and as an acronym should be upper-case), but I thought they maybe dropped that somewhere along the way.
Fortran and Cobol used to be "FORTRAN" and "COBOL", too, but once systems with support for upper- and lowercase-letters became widespread, they went mixed-case.
I recall there was some debate if the name BASIC had been intended as an acronym initially, but in time, evidence (AFAIR, anyway) tended to support the claim is was an acronym from the very beginning. (-:
Re: Microsoft GW-Basic Interpreter Source Code
#18Like so many, I gathered my first experiences with programming in Basic (or is it BASIC?). My first computer was a Commodore 128, and my mother sent to a week-long programming course that for some reason the local Sparkasse (quasi-public bank in Germany) held over the Easter holidays And here we used PCs running DOS, so I almost certainly did my first baby steps programming using GW-BASIC. Little did I know the Basic…
I suspect they'll get zero PRs: "The files in this repo are for historical reference only and will remain read-only and unmodified in their original state. Please do not send Pull Requests suggesting any modifications to the source files."
Ah, yes, I should have read the README. ;-)
Re: Microsoft GW-Basic Interpreter Source Code
#19All of the "comments are useless because they get out of date" folks should look at this code, which is still comprehensible 40 years later because of the comments.
Well, they get out of date because the code around it changes. If the code doesn't change either... I do agree with you though that commenting is a good thing.
Updating comments as needed is just something I consider part of being a professional programmer.
Re: Microsoft GW-Basic Interpreter Source Code
#20(From the linked announcement blog:) > (Alas, sorry, we’re unable to open-source the ISA translator.) Awww...
I wonder why. Uses third-party code? Some contractor/consultant/etc wrote it and they can't find the contract so they don't know what it says about copyrights? Lost it completely?
Likely something like that. My money is on them being unable to locate someone who needs to give permission, and it's probably not a very high priority issue.
I vaguely recall reading a blog post when Sun opened the Solaris source code, that it was a tremendous effort tracking down every single person they needed permission from.