>I had always believed that 8201A was technically more advanced both as
software and as hardware compared Tandy and Olivetti, actually I was
totally wrong

That's a bit harsh. By saying you were "totally wrong" you are implying
that the Tandy model was more advanced in both software and hardware.  I
would argue the variations are relatively minor and each has its plus and
minuses.  As Mike says, BASICS differ in subtle ways.  I did quite a bit of
programming on the NEC 8201a.  I had no complaints.  I was also very
familiar with TRS-80 BASIC from owning and programming a Model 1 clone.
The Model 100's BASIC was close to this.  It was also a good
implementation.   My thoughts are summarised here:
http://www.classic-computers.org.nz/blog/2009-11-4-nec8201a-vrs-model-100.htm

Terry (Tez)


On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Mike Stein <[email protected]> wrote:

> How about this:
>
> PB$(1)=LEFT$(PB$(1),3) + LEFT$(D$,5) + RIGHT$(PB$(1),LEN(PB$(1))-9)
>
> Many BASICs did not have this form of MID$, so I don't think it
> necessarily makes it weak...
>
> If you play with BASIC on different computers you'll find many subtle
> differences...
>
> m
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "NEC" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 4:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [M100] Translating BASIC code from 100 to NEC.
>
>
> > Thank you Kurt.
> > Ok, I'll take a look deeper at your link.
> > Honestly I had thought it was simpler.
> > First of all I find it difficult to exploit the informations provided in
> your link.
> > I tried to use the line you wrote:
> >
> > PB$(1)=LEFT$(PB$(1),3) + LEFT$(D$,5) + RIGHT$(PB$,LEN(PB$)-9)
> >
> > Sadly it doesn't work, an error message is issued, this:
> >
> > ?FC Error
> >
> > I wonder why NEC chose that weird way for his laptop making its BASIC
> weak compared with its direct antagonists Tandy and Olivetti.
> > Such a shame, really a hard life for guys that want to program on NEC.
> > I had always believed that 8201A was technically more advanced both as
> software and as hardware compared Tandy and Olivetti, actually I was
> totally wrong.
> >
> > Peppino
>

Reply via email to