karl@dartvax.UUCP (Karl Berry.) (02/25/85)
<mike disqualifies all Basics beyond the one with only GOTOs, GOSUBs, and such as being ``real'' Basic. I think that the latest ANSI standard Basic is quite different from your average microcomputer Basic; it includes all the normal control structures, subroutines, and even a way of packaging subroutines. It's nothing special, but it's a far cry from spaghetti. I don't know if this Basic will ever become the de facto standard on microcomputers, but it would be nice if it did... dartvax!karl karl@dartmouth.csnet
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (02/27/85)
In article <2778@dartvax.UUCP> karl@dartvax.UUCP (Karl Berry.) writes: ><mike disqualifies all Basics beyond the one with only GOTOs, GOSUBs, and >such as being ``real'' Basic. I think that the latest ANSI standard Basic is >quite different from your average microcomputer Basic; it includes all the >normal control structures, subroutines, and even a way of packaging >subroutines. It's nothing special, but it's a far cry from spaghetti. I >don't know if this Basic will ever become the de facto standard on >microcomputers, but it would be nice if it did... I'll say the latest ANSII standard BASIC is a far cry from anything running on a micro. As far as I know, it's a far cry from anything running, period. (Well, PL/I may be an exception :-). Does anybody know if anyone has tried to build an ANSI standard BASIC system (compiler, interpreter, whatever)? I discount ANSI BASIC for the same reason I discount BASIC09, BASIC+, and a list of others: it doesn't port afterwards. ANSI left the minimal BASIC as a standard for far to long, and (as with Pascal) everybody did there own set of extensions. Thus, the only thing to distinguish ANSI BASIC from a host of others is the name, the elephantitis, and the (possible) lack of implementations. <mike
robert@cheviot.UUCP (Robert Stroud) (03/01/85)
<273@cheviot.UUCP> cancelled from rn.
robert@cheviot.UUCP (Robert Stroud) (03/01/85)
In article <775@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> mwm@ucbtopaz.UUCP (Praiser of Bob) writes: > >I'll say the latest ANSII standard BASIC is a far cry from anything running >on a micro. As far as I know, it's a far cry from anything running, period. >(Well, PL/I may be an exception :-). Does anybody know if anyone has tried >to build an ANSI standard BASIC system (compiler, interpreter, whatever)? I believe that a new British micro, the Elan Enterprise runs something that's pretty close to ANSI Basic. It sells for around 250 pounds (or dollars :-)! According to the review in the November 1984 copy of Personal Computer World that I am basing this on.... "The Basic is supplied on a cartridge & is a version of ANSI standard Basic, extended (sic!) with structured features, graphics, sound and links to the operating system". Mind you, it runs pretty slowly! Another British first?? (:-) > > <mike Robert Stroud, Computing Laboratory, University of Newcastle upon Tyne. ARPA robert%cheviot%newcastle.mailnet@mit-multics.arpa UUCP ...!ukc!cheviot!robert
kurt@fluke.UUCP (Kurt Guntheroth) (03/01/85)
ANSI BASIC is indeed different from other BASICs. It isn't really BASIC at
all. It isn't even a language. Imagine a 'BASIC' which has the following
properties:
1. Impossible to interpret (efficiently)
2. Three ways to declare an array
3. Five ways to denote a function, plus program chaining.
4. Concurrency (an option at least)
5. Breaks 100 percent of all existing BASIC programs, no matter how simple
due to REQUIRED new syntax.
6. Makes BCD (inefficient) floating point the standard to preserve precision
in financial arithmetic, then provides fixed point numbers for financial
arithmetic, then doesn't bother to provide (efficient) integers, even
though many numbers in BASIC are required to be integral.
If you think I'm kidding, think again. Get ahold of the ANSI BASIC standard
and you will see it all there. It is unbelievable.
--
Kurt Guntheroth
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
{uw-beaver,decvax!microsof,ucbvax!lbl-csam,allegra,ssc-vax}!fluke!kurtchuck@dartvax.UUCP (Chuck Simmons) (03/02/85)
> I'll say the latest ANSII standard BASIC is a far cry from anything running > on a micro. As far as I know, it's a far cry from anything running, period. > (Well, PL/I may be an exception :-). Does anybody know if anyone has tried > to build an ANSI standard BASIC system (compiler, interpreter, whatever)? Here at Dartmouth where Basic was invented, we have 4 Basic compilers, one of which is supposed to be ANSI standard. You should check out True Basic's Basic interpreter for the IBM PC and the Macintosh. If it isn't ANSI standard, it's damn near. I usually program in a local variant of PL/1. When I do program in Basic, it's because Basic has a wonderful graphics interface -- at least when compared with other languages on the system -- and Basic is better at manipulating matrices than PL/1. I think the portability issue is overrated. Being able to port a program from one machine to another is not as important as people imply. A C program written for the Macintosh (say, Hack, for example) that makes use of the graphics capabilities of the machine is just not going to port to a Vax connected to a vt100. Most of the programs I write, games and systems software, are quite dependent on the local operating system. For example, I'm working on a multiuser version of Risk. The way in which I receive interrupts from a user is highly dependent on the OS. Also, most of the C programs I've worked with (hack, rogue, snake, emacs) won't port to our system because we do not support single character I/O on terminals for efficiency reasons. (I use C as an example here because it is touted as the example of a portable language.) Before program portability can become an issue, we need to have at least a standard operating system. And I pray every night before I go to sleep that Unix will not become the standard. chuck_simmons%d1@dartvax