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

21–30 of 121 posts

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#21

Post by ikari_pl »

bestouff wrote: post #18
nox100 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up typing programs from softdisk magazine, Compute! etc... into TRS-80, Apple II, Atari 800, and C-64. I still think JavaScript in a browser is better. JavaScript is way more powerful than Basic on any of those 4 platforms. The canvas 2D API is way more capable and easy than what came with those systems. Even getting something like Was 50-150 lines of code in BASIC, by which I mean a text input line with a cur…

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.

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#22

Post by ikari_pl »

nox100 wrote: post #13
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…

I grew up typing programs from softdisk magazine, Compute! etc... into TRS-80, Apple II, Atari 800, and C-64. I still think JavaScript in a browser is better. JavaScript is way more powerful than Basic on any of those 4 platforms. The canvas 2D API is way more capable and easy than what came with those systems. Even getting something like Was 50-150 lines of code in BASIC, by which I mean a text input line with a cur…

It's hard to compare these, it's like comparing a shovel to an excavator.

If a browser had to be implemented in 16 KB of binary, and use at most 48kB of RAM when running, many of the APIs you enjoy having would not be there. And it's not even about features of the language itself.

There was a time when you could have both - the language and the functionalities of a browser - IE supported VBScript in script tags:

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#23

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#24

Post by pjmlp »

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.

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#25

Post by bitwize »

BASIC was an IDE even going back to Kemeny and Kurtz in the 60s. The upshot of that was, it was one of the first times nontechnical people would even countenance writing programs for a computer. Instead of having to use a keypunch to author the program and then submit the cardstack to an operator, you could author, run, and debug the program by sitting at the teletype and entering some simple commands along with your program.

Members of the Dartmouth football team wrote a football simulation for Dartmouth BASIC back then; a port of this game for microcomputer BASICs is available in David H. Ahl's BASIC Computer Games as "FTBALL".

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#26

Post by rented_mule »

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?

Microsoft BASIC for Atari 400 and Atari 800 (which is distinct from the Atari BASIC that shipped with those computers) had a `RENUM` command that would renumber lines. New line numbers would start at 10 and increment by 10. Those defaults could be overridden.

https://archive.org/details/a8b_Atari_800_Basic_v1.0_1981_Mi...

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#27

Post by ghusbands »

CJefferson wrote: post #12
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.

They could have typoed '664', which was the 464 with a floppy disk drive. However there basic was still in the ROM.

It was a typo for 464 - you can tell by the video it links to.

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#28

Post by benj111 »

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…

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'

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#29

Post by gsliepen »

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #10
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?

Amstrad CPC (Locomotive BASIC) and the BBC Micro both had it. In the CPC implementation, at least, you could choose the starting line number and the increment, e.g. RENUM 100,5

Locomotive BASIC was also a very good BASIC implementation. I wrote a multiplayer game with background music in it, without having to resort to any PEEKs or POKEs like you would on a Commodore 64.

Re: BASIC was not just a programming language

#30

Post by Baldbvrhunter »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #11
Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amstrad CPC (Locomotive BASIC) and the BBC Micro both had it. In the CPC implementation, at least, you could choose the starting line number and the increment, e.g. RENUM 100,5

IIRC BBC BASIC let you choose the renumber increment, but the ZX Spectrum didn't.

For approved choices :)

> AUTO10,1000

Silly

> _

Post reply on HN