There's also an "emulator" for GW-BASIC for Mac/Windows/Linux. You'd have to port to DOS, but that might be a good start. GPL 3
https://sourceforge.net/projects/pcbasic/ On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Louis Santillan <lpsan...@gmail.com> wrote: > There's a real minimal, hacky version of BASIC in David Dunfield's DOS > tools, with source [0][1][2][3]. Maybe refer to that if you need > inspiration. > > [0] http://www.classiccmp.org/dunfield/dos/index.htm > [1] http://www.classiccmp.org/dunfield/dos/sample.txt > [2] http://www.classiccmp.org/dunfield/dos/mc323exa.zip > [3] http://www.classiccmp.org/dunfield/dos/basic.zip > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:12 AM Steve Nickolas <usots...@buric.co> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, David McMackins wrote: >> >> >> Will the BASIC interpreter comptiable Microsoft QBASIC? >> >> >> >> I wish this BASIC interpreter is QBASIC.EXE for FreeDOS >> >> for compatibility. It's name may be "FreeQB". >> > >> > Eh, we may have different goals here. I'm looking for something closer >> > to >> > ANSI BASIC (actually I'm thinking of basing mine on ECMA-55 since it's >> > free). >> > I just want a plain old BASIC with the ability to run shell commands. My >> > vision is to have a really small binary that could reasonably run on an >> > IBM >> > PC and replace MS BASIC. >> > >> > I don't really see a need to replace QBASIC, because FreeBASIC already >> > replaces QuickBASIC which I believe is a superset of QBASIC. >> > >> > Really I want to to this because COMMAND.COM is just too limited for >> > some of >> > the things I want to script, and I hate having to cross-communicate >> > between >> > COMMAND and bwBASIC. >> >> I tend to think GW-BASIC might be a better baseline than QBASIC. It would >> at least provide a 3.31 baseline. >> >> QBASIC is a subset of QuickBasic 4.5 - it's a kneecapped version. The >> source got leaked years ago - it might be possible to give it the "Chinese >> wall" treatment, if anyone were up to the task. >> >> (Obviously I can't code a MS-style BASIC interpreter without running into >> issues, as I have seen the source to a couple of their interpreters. But >> as someone who knows them quite well, I'd gladly torture test one if >> someone were to produce it.) >> >> -uso. >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot >> _______________________________________________ >> Freedos-devel mailing list >> Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
