Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BASIC was not just a programming language

gcher.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 121 posts

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#31

Post by flohofwoe »

tromp wrote: post #6

> If you ran out of numbers, the renum command would recompute all the line numbers for you. This is the first time I heard of such a BASIC command, even though I grew up learning to program on a Sinclair ZX Spectrum. Which of the home computers of the time had this command? Would it renumber in multiples of 10?

HC-BASIC, the common BASIC implementation on East German 8-bit computers (KC85/1../4, KC87, Z1013) has a RENUMBER command. Without args, it simply starts at the first existing line number and increments by 10. With args it was possible to move an existing range to a new starting line number and interval.

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#32

Post by ikari_pl »

pjmlp wrote: post #24
tromp wrote: post #6

> If you ran out of numbers, the renum command would recompute all the line numbers for you. This is the first time I heard of such a BASIC command, even though I grew up learning to program on a Sinclair ZX Spectrum. Which of the home computers of the time had this command? Would it renumber in multiples of 10?

BASIC on the ZX was quite limiting, unless you were already enjoying 128K ZX Basic, or even better on CP/M for the +3A model with integrated floppy drive.

which BASIC for CP/M did you use? (there's a few, and there was no standard, so feature parity is not guaranteed)

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#33

Post by ikari_pl »

masswerk wrote: post #5
Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything was in ROM: 16k BASIC, 16k operating system, optional 16k disk operating system. The 464 (“646” is a typo) shipped with a cassette deck, not a floppy disk drive, so there was no possibility of loading the OS from volatile storage.

> so there was no possibility of loading the OS from volatile storage. There are exceptions to this rule: Sharp was known for their concept of "clean computers" (MZ series and X1), which came only with a simple monitor in ROM, while at the same time featuring just a cassette drive to load a BASIC interpreter (of which there were several flavors) from.

And Amstrad PCW had boot code in the printer controller, to save on ROM prices :D, and booted from a floppy only (by default to a CP/M as well)

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#34

Post by flohofwoe »

fuzzfactor wrote: post #20
mcbishop wrote: post #2

> The Amstrad CPC 646 would literally take less than a second to boot Wow.

>literally take less than a second to boot Literally, completely wrong. More like less than a second after power-up to reach full usefulness at the command line. These type computers did not need to actually boot their OS from a "peripheral" storage device. They did not "boot" at all, they just ran the built-in OS/BASIC straight from where it was contained on ROM. This was like the C64 which had its BASIC in internal…

> ...reach full usefulness at the command line

...that's pretty much what "booting" means though. Even on those hardwired machines with operating system and BASIC interpreter in ROM, the hardware still needs to be brought into a defined state (IO, timer, audio and video chips need to be initialized, interrupts need to be setup, the operating system needs to initialize portions of RAM used for keeping variable state, also checking what peripheral devices and hardware modules are connected and initializing those, and so on and on...).

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#35

Post by ikari_pl »

benj111 wrote: post #28
fuzzfactor wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>literally take less than a second to boot Literally, completely wrong. More like less than a second after power-up to reach full usefulness at the command line. These type computers did not need to actually boot their OS from a "peripheral" storage device. They did not "boot" at all, they just ran the built-in OS/BASIC straight from where it was contained on ROM. This was like the C64 which had its BASIC in internal…

Define boot. Booting doesn't require loading an os. And if we include dos as an os, I'm not even sure of the conceptual difference between booting basic and booting dos. The only major thing is device discovery and setup etc. But even the 8 bits had to start up the screen output routines, so I would still classify that as 'booting'

on the Amstrad computers, and that's the context, BASIC was an interpreter on top of AMSDOS, which is a DOS, and an OS (just without any UI) indeed.

It's AMSDOS that provided hardware and disk handling, while BASIC could focus on running BASIC code. I think even the graphics routines (like setting a pixel) may have been implemented in AMSDOS, but not sure - and the line between two is blurry from user perspective. While those are two ROMs by two companies, they were developed in cooperation.

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#36

Post by pipes »

Always thought the raspberry pi was missing a trick by not just dropping straight into basic. It is supposed to be a learning tool, Linux is a brick wall of a learning curve (imo!)

Anyway it's been a very long time since I used my raspberry pi, maybe this is now a feature.

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#37

Post by nickdothutton »

I got started on a CPC with Locomotive BASIC before upgrading my system with disk drive, 256KB RAM pack, ROMS, and CP/M 2.2 and then 3.0. Sought out CP/M because of the amount of free software already available. Programmed in BASIC, BCPL, and eventually C (not a great fit for the Z80). It’s hard to express the value of this learning experience to young users today.

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#38

Post by pcdoodle »

ikari_pl wrote: post #21
bestouff wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it's way less discoverable. The BASIC prompt was all you got on some 8 bits computers, so it made playing with it almost mandatory. Also everything was way simpler (less abstractions layers, no network) to grok for a young kid.

And all of your BASIC was in the manual, taught to you as soon as you bought the computer.

I picked BASIC in 3rd grade reading a "stolen" math book. I saw a bunch of 10 line examples in its pages and remembered that weird pc jr. cartridge that said basic. The cartridge seemed useless until that day....

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#39

Post by teamonkey »

zubairq wrote: post #4

I agree that dropping into the basic interpreter was amazing on the old 8 bit computers. Things have really changed recently with the popularity of Retro computing as I wrote about the exact same thing around 10-15 years ago (I can't find the post unfortunately) and I was downvoted a lot as almost all the commenters seemed to think that accessing DevTools in Google Chrome and entering Javascript commands was that sam…

“It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.“

I genuinely feel that Dijkstra’s famous rant about BASIC had a big hand in killing it off. I don’t think it was the intention but it created so much bias against BASIC. If you created something in basic, or even suggested using it, someone would post that quote in the usenet thread. Like Godwin’s Law.

It’s a shame, because it was so accessible, not just because it was right there but also because it does make it very easy for beginners to understand programming in a way that structured programming doesn’t.

If there’s one language guilty of causing brain damage it’s surely JavaScript.

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#40

Post by pjmlp »

ikari_pl wrote: post #32
pjmlp wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BASIC on the ZX was quite limiting, unless you were already enjoying 128K ZX Basic, or even better on CP/M for the +3A model with integrated floppy drive.

which BASIC for CP/M did you use? (there's a few, and there was no standard, so feature parity is not guaranteed)

CP/M already had compilers for BASIC, but I don't recall the name, I only owned a Timex 2068, the 128K were owned by other folks in our group.
Post reply on HN