stevel@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Steve Ligett) (08/12/89)
In article <1617@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: >...TRUEBasic is supposed to be fully compatible with the latest ANSI >standard for BASIC. In other words, it is not *remotely* compatible >with GW-BASIC, Microsoft BASIC, Turbo BASIC, or any other PC BASIC. ... Whoa, I thought that Turbo BASIC and Microsoft's QuickBasic were ANSI, or ANSI-like. True BASIC is NOT like the old (PC or GW) BASIC. Thank goodness. They do include a "converter" that might be useful in changing PC-BASIC to True BASIC. Disclaimer: I know people who used to work for True BASIC. Steve Ligett steve.ligett@dartmouth.edu or (decvax harvard linus true)!dartvax!steve.ligett
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (08/14/89)
stevel@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Steve Ligett) writes: <In article <1617@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: <>...TRUEBasic is supposed to be fully compatible with the latest ANSI <>standard for BASIC. In other words, it is not *remotely* compatible <>with GW-BASIC, Microsoft BASIC, Turbo BASIC, or any other PC BASIC. <... <Whoa, I thought that Turbo BASIC and Microsoft's QuickBasic were ANSI, or <ANSI-like. True BASIC is NOT like the old (PC or GW) BASIC. Thank <goodness. They do include a "converter" that might be useful in <changing PC-BASIC to True BASIC. The ANSI basic standard arrived at about 5 years ago is *very* different from the older ANSI basic standard. It borrowed heavily from mainframe implementations and pretty much ingored Microsoft implementations. Of the top of my head the only difference I can recall is that "!" rather than "'" is a remark marker. But just think how much code *that* will break... and it is one of the more minor differences. -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short
bpendlet@bambam.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) (08/15/89)
From article <14980@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>, by stevel@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Steve Ligett): > Whoa, I thought that Turbo BASIC and Microsoft's QuickBasic were ANSI, or > ANSI-like. True BASIC is NOT like the old (PC or GW) BASIC. Thank > goodness. They do include a "converter" that might be useful in > changing PC-BASIC to True BASIC. The question is; which ANSI Basic? There is ANSI BASIC, which TrueBASIC implements. And, there is ANSI Minimal BASIC. ANSI Minimal BASIC is a subset of GWBasic. Or maybe I should say that in the process of creating GWBasic, microsoft BASIC was extended so that it included all of ANSI Minimal BASIC as a subset. IMNSHO (In My Not So Humble Opinion) ANSI BASIC is a respectable applications programming language. It actually improves on Dartmouth BASIC. Dartmouth BASIC was, for its time, a very nice application programming language/environment. It is nice to see some good, compiled, implementations of BASIC hitting the street. Thoughs of us who learned BASIC on mainframes were very surprised to find that microcomputer BASICs were interpreted. When I learned BASIC a good sized mainframe had a megabyte of ram, a 1 mip processor, and maybe as much as 100 megs of disk. Bob P. -- Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself. UUCP Address: decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet Reality is stanger than most people can imagine
mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (08/20/89)
>It is nice to see some good, compiled, implementations of BASIC >hitting the street. Thoughs of us who learned BASIC on mainframes >were very surprised to find that microcomputer BASICs were >interpreted. When I learned BASIC a good sized mainframe had a >megabyte of ram, a 1 mip processor, and maybe as much as 100 megs of >disk. I was very surprised to see that VAX Basic was not an interpreter. I had always thought that the only reason for someone to use Basic is if they needed, for some reason or another, an interpreted language. Real Basic (as opposed to ANSI Basic, which isn't Basic) is very useful for small, easily changed things done once and discarded. It is like a grown up calculator. Compiling destroys that. For real projects there are compiled languages like C or Fortran. When I learned Basic, a good sized mainframe said "7094" on the front. Doug McDonald