Re: [Freedos-devel] Good BASIC interpreter?
On Sun, 15 Jul 2018, TK Chia wrote: Regarding bwBASIC's SHELL( ) problem, I believe this is because the interpreter (in bwb_fnc.c in v3.20) uses system( ) to implement it, and both Watcom's system( ) function and `command.com /c' will return 0 as long as command.com is able to run at all. GW-BASIC's shell command works in the exact same way. -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
Re: [Freedos-devel] Good BASIC interpreter?
Hello Mr. McMackins, I guess I am a little late with this --- but I had recently been checking out some existing BASIC implementation projects, and I think there might be a few BASICs which can be ported, with some effort. For example there is the "Minimal BASIC Compiler" (http://buraphakit.sourceforge.net/BASIC.shtml), and the "bas55" interpreter (http://jorgicor.sdfeu.org/bas55/). I had also been tinkering with Alan Cox's fork of a "ubasic" interpreter (https://github.com/tkchia/ubasic-ia16), and got it to work in DOS, though it is rather limited at this time. (I suspect that bas55 is also small enough to fit on a 16-bit machine, but it is a bit too big to build with ia16-elf-gcc, so I hope to find a way to build it with Open Watcom.) Regarding bwBASIC's SHELL( ) problem, I believe this is because the interpreter (in bwb_fnc.c in v3.20) uses system( ) to implement it, and both Watcom's system( ) function and `command.com /c' will return 0 as long as command.com is able to run at all. (As a test, I recompiled bwBASIC on Linux/x64, and SHELL( ) did correctly return a wait( )-style status there.) One way to work around this in bwBASIC, at least for non-built-in shell commands, might be to use Watcom's spawn...( ) functions. Thank you! -- https://github.com/tkchia On 07/13/2018 12:29 AM, David McMackins wrote: Well, that being the case, I guess I'll write my own. I'll send out an announcement when development starts; I'd like to finish the library I'm working on first. For those interested in BASIC, if there are those among you with some experience with interpreters, I'm sure I could use some assistance in making a fast parsing routine. I've done something a little bit like this before that's pretty fast, but that program runs on modern computers with plenty of memory. Happy Hacking, David E. McMackins II Supporting Member, Electronic Frontier Foundation (#2296972) Associate Member, Free Software Foundation (#12889) www.mcmackins.org www.delwink.com www.eff.org www.gnu.org www.fsf.org On 2018-07-12 11:08, Jim Hall wrote: We only have bwbasic and Free BASIC in the FreeDOS software list, and they are the only updated BASIC environments I know of. I don't code in BASIC these days, so this isn't my area of expertise. But Free BASIC is 32 bit. So I think bwbasic is the only one that meets your requirements. On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 5:50 PM David McMackins wrote: As someone who would like to write code that can be easily understood by users of other 80s computer systems, I prefer to write my scripts in BASIC. I've been using Bywater BASIC from the FreeDOS distribution, and it's quite good up until you want to start considering the outside world. In my particular example, SHELL() is supposed to return the exit code of the program that you tell it to run, but it seems to always return 0. I tried my damnedest looking at the source code for this program, but it is perhaps the messiest code I have ever looked at (and I've looked at mathematicians' code which is a sight to behold). I spent at least 2 hours digging and couldn't even find where the actual work was being done to execute these external commands, much less what is done with the exit code. I'll spare you my full rant about how bad it is in there. Anyway, are there any other decent BASIC interpreters to be found? My requirements are: a free software license, ability to run external commands, ability to run on 16-bit systems. Happy Hacking, David E. McMackins II Supporting Member, Electronic Frontier Foundation (#2296972) Associate Member, Free Software Foundation (#12889) www.mcmackins.org [1] www.delwink.com [2] www.eff.org [3] www.gnu.org [4] www.fsf.org [5] -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot [6] ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel [7] Links: -- [1] http://www.mcmackins.org [2] http://www.delwink.com [3] http://www.eff.org [4] http://www.gnu.org [5] http://www.fsf.org [6] http://sdm.link/slashdot [7] 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
Re: [Freedos-devel] Good BASIC interpreter?
Ah. I didn't check out the code to see. Thanks. On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 7:44 AM Ralf Quint wrote: > On 7/12/2018 8:41 PM, Jim Hall wrote: > > 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/ > While interesting in general, there is no easy way to "port" it to DOS, > as it requires Python to run... > > Ralf > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > -- > 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
Re: [Freedos-devel] Good BASIC interpreter?
On 7/12/2018 8:41 PM, Jim Hall wrote: 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/ While interesting in general, there is no easy way to "port" it to DOS, as it requires Python to run... Ralf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -- 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
Re: [Freedos-devel] Good BASIC interpreter?
> If you can preserve COMMAND.COM syntax and add a BASIC-like > programming language behind it, that would make this an interesting > extended shell. Maybe an idea for an interested developer? actually microsoft had this idea as well. in 1995 when creating the windows NT command interpreter CMD.EXE. like > * FOR N=1 TO 10 DO ECHO %N%* for /L %%N in (1,1,10) do echo %%N > * IF %VALUE%==1 ECHO True* > * IF NOT %VALUE%==1 ECHO False* > * IF EXIST FILE.TXT ECHO Exists* > * FOR %%N IN (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10) DO ECHO %%N* MSDOS command.com, ~1985 >* SET A=%%A + 1* SET /A A=%%A + 1*(arithmetic to differentiate strings and calculations) Tom -- 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
Re: [Freedos-devel] Good BASIC interpreter?
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, Jim Hall wrote: On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:18 PM, Jim Hall wrote: This is a tangent, but since some folks are interested in writing a new BASIC interpreter, I wonder if someone is interested in writing a BASIC-like "shell"? Something that uses a combination of BASIC and COMMAND.COM syntax would make the interpreter a "superset" of COMMAND.COM, and an interesting new shell replacement. Just an idea. Following this idea a bit: Use "SET" to assign variables, instead of "LET": * SET A=4* * SET DIR=C:\FDOS\BIN* And "ECHO" to display output instead of "PRINT" * ECHO Hello world* And use "%" to reference variables: * SET A=%A% + 1* * ECHO %A%* Or allow "%%" to reference variables, interchangeably: (sloppy, but useful later) * SET A=%%A + 1* * ECHO %%A* And support extra "IF" constructs so the language can do these: * IF %VALUE%==1 ECHO True* * IF NOT %VALUE%==1 ECHO False* * IF %VALUE%<>1 ECHO False* * IF %VALUE%>1 ECHO Greater* * IF %STR%<"ABC" ECHO Less* And an additional test for files: * IF EXIST FILE.TXT ECHO Exists* The "FOR" statement would need to be extended: * FOR N=1 TO 10 ECHO %N% NEXT N* Or as a one-line shortcut: * FOR N=1 TO 10 DO ECHO %N%* And add a special "IN" syntax with "(..)" to create an iteration: * FOR %%N IN (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10) DO ECHO %%N* * FOR %%FILE IN (*.TXT) DO ECHO %%F* (If the language allows "%A%" and "%%A" then DOS batch programs would probably work seamlessly.) "GOTO" would use ":" to mark labels like COMMAND.COM: * SET N=1* * :LOOP* * ECHO %N%* * SET N=%N% + 1* * IF %N%<10 GOTO LOOP* And of course, comments remain the same: * REM This is a comment* If you called the BASIC-like "shell" using a special parameter (like */P*) then it would be nice for anything else you specify that isn't recognized as a shell statement (assuming other syntax is correct) get treated like an external command. That would make this more like a shell: * IF EXIST FILE.TXT DEL FILE.TXT* Also other internal constructs for "CALL" and "ERRORLEVEL" and "SHIFT" and "PATH" - but you get the idea. If you can preserve COMMAND.COM syntax and add a BASIC-like programming language behind it, that would make this an interesting extended shell. Maybe an idea for an interested developer? I almost did something similar 20 years ago. It really didn't work like I wanted it to, but it was this hybrid of a shell and quasi-BASIC language. -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
Re: [Freedos-devel] Good BASIC interpreter?
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:18 PM, Jim Hall wrote: > This is a tangent, but since > some > folks are interested in writing a new BASIC interpreter, I wonder if > someone is interested in writing a BASIC-like "shell"? Something that uses > a combination of BASIC and COMMAND.COM syntax would make the interpreter > a "superset" of COMMAND.COM, and an interesting new shell replacement. > > Just an idea. > Following this idea a bit: Use "SET" to assign variables, instead of "LET": * SET A=4* * SET DIR=C:\FDOS\BIN* And "ECHO" to display output instead of "PRINT" * ECHO Hello world* And use "%" to reference variables: * SET A=%A% + 1* * ECHO %A%* Or allow "%%" to reference variables, interchangeably: (sloppy, but useful later) * SET A=%%A + 1* * ECHO %%A* And support extra "IF" constructs so the language can do these: * IF %VALUE%==1 ECHO True* * IF NOT %VALUE%==1 ECHO False* * IF %VALUE%<>1 ECHO False* * IF %VALUE%>1 ECHO Greater* * IF %STR%<"ABC" ECHO Less* And an additional test for files: * IF EXIST FILE.TXT ECHO Exists* The "FOR" statement would need to be extended: * FOR N=1 TO 10 ECHO %N% NEXT N* Or as a one-line shortcut: * FOR N=1 TO 10 DO ECHO %N%* And add a special "IN" syntax with "(..)" to create an iteration: * FOR %%N IN (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10) DO ECHO %%N* * FOR %%FILE IN (*.TXT) DO ECHO %%F* (If the language allows "%A%" and "%%A" then DOS batch programs would probably work seamlessly.) "GOTO" would use ":" to mark labels like COMMAND.COM: * SET N=1* * :LOOP* * ECHO %N%* * SET N=%N% + 1* * IF %N%<10 GOTO LOOP* And of course, comments remain the same: * REM This is a comment* If you called the BASIC-like "shell" using a special parameter (like */P*) then it would be nice for anything else you specify that isn't recognized as a shell statement (assuming other syntax is correct) get treated like an external command. That would make this more like a shell: * IF EXIST FILE.TXT DEL FILE.TXT* Also other internal constructs for "CALL" and "ERRORLEVEL" and "SHIFT" and "PATH" - but you get the idea. If you can preserve COMMAND.COM syntax and add a BASIC-like programming language behind it, that would make this an interesting extended shell. Maybe an idea for an interested developer? -- 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
Re: [Freedos-devel] Good BASIC interpreter?
This is a tangent, but since some folks are interested in writing a new BASIC interpreter, I wonder if someone is interested in writing a BASIC-like "shell"? Something that uses a combination of BASIC and COMMAND.COM syntax would make the interpreter a "superset" of COMMAND.COM, and an interesting new shell replacement. Just an idea. -- 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
Re: [Freedos-devel] Good BASIC interpreter?
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 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 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
Re: [Freedos-devel] Good BASIC interpreter?
I think I'd go with "basica" for a GW clone, simply because it's what a lot of batch files will expect. (And "GW-BASIC" is trademarked.) Or you could just add an alias to your AUTOEXEC.BAT file. --- Happy Hacking, David E. McMackins II Supporting Member, Electronic Frontier Foundation (#2296972) Associate Member, Free Software Foundation (#12889) www.mcmackins.org www.delwink.com www.eff.org www.gnu.org www.fsf.org On 2018-07-12 15:13, Steve Nickolas wrote: On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, Ercan Ersoy wrote: It is good idea. Will this BASIC environment be compatible BASICA? (BASICA and GW-BASIC are about 99% identical. Main difference is that GW-BASIC doesn't make calls into the IBM Cassette Basic ROM. I usually use the latter term to make it clear I'm referring to the generic dialect, but there's no practical difference.) I think GW-BASIC clone name's and QBASIC clone name's is "FD-BASIC". I think I'd go with "basica" for a GW clone, simply because it's what a lot of batch files will expect. (And "GW-BASIC" is trademarked.) -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
Re: [Freedos-devel] Good BASIC interpreter?
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, Ercan Ersoy wrote: It is good idea. Will this BASIC environment be compatible BASICA? (BASICA and GW-BASIC are about 99% identical. Main difference is that GW-BASIC doesn't make calls into the IBM Cassette Basic ROM. I usually use the latter term to make it clear I'm referring to the generic dialect, but there's no practical difference.) I think GW-BASIC clone name's and QBASIC clone name's is "FD-BASIC". I think I'd go with "basica" for a GW clone, simply because it's what a lot of batch files will expect. (And "GW-BASIC" is trademarked.) -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
Re: [Freedos-devel] Good BASIC interpreter?
It is good idea. Will this BASIC environment be compatible BASICA? Maybe eventually. Sounds like a good goal, but I care first about minimal BASIC and shell access, then I can consider extensions. Happy Hacking, David E. McMackins II Supporting Member, Electronic Frontier Foundation (#2296972) Associate Member, Free Software Foundation (#12889) www.mcmackins.org www.delwink.com www.eff.org www.gnu.org www.fsf.org On 2018-07-12 14:01, Ercan Ersoy wrote: 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. It is good idea. Will this BASIC environment be compatible BASICA? I don't really see a need to replace QBASIC, because FreeBASIC already replaces QuickBASIC which I believe is a superset of QBASIC. FreeBASIC is 32 bit. It needs CWSDPMI. I've wanted to clone GW-BASIC, but trying to do even that is quite a bit out of my range as a programmer (plus I've been pretty deep into Microsoft's 6502 BASIC source code, which is a close relative to GW-BASIC, so...) Good idea. I think GW-BASIC clone name's and QBASIC clone name's is "FD-BASIC". Thanks, Ercan -- 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
Re: [Freedos-devel] Good BASIC interpreter?
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. It is good idea. Will this BASIC environment be compatible BASICA? I don't really see a need to replace QBASIC, because FreeBASIC already replaces QuickBASIC which I believe is a superset of QBASIC. FreeBASIC is 32 bit. It needs CWSDPMI. I've wanted to clone GW-BASIC, but trying to do even that is quite a bit out of my range as a programmer (plus I've been pretty deep into Microsoft's 6502 BASIC source code, which is a close relative to GW-BASIC, so...) Good idea. I think GW-BASIC clone name's and QBASIC clone name's is "FD-BASIC". Thanks, Ercan -- 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
Re: [Freedos-devel] Good BASIC interpreter?
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 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
Re: [Freedos-devel] Good BASIC interpreter?
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
Re: [Freedos-devel] Good BASIC interpreter?
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, Jim Hall wrote: We only have bwbasic and Free BASIC in the FreeDOS software list, and they are the only updated BASIC environments I know of. I don't code in BASIC these days, so this isn't my area of expertise. But Free BASIC is 32 bit. So I think bwbasic is the only one that meets your requirements. I've wanted to clone GW-BASIC, but trying to do even that is quite a bit out of my range as a programmer (plus I've been pretty deep into Microsoft's 6502 BASIC source code, which is a close relative to GW-BASIC, so...) -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
Re: [Freedos-devel] Good BASIC interpreter?
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. Happy Hacking, David E. McMackins II Supporting Member, Electronic Frontier Foundation (#2296972) Associate Member, Free Software Foundation (#12889) www.mcmackins.org www.delwink.com www.eff.org www.gnu.org www.fsf.org On 2018-07-12 11:42, Ercan Ersoy wrote: Hello, Well, that being the case, I guess I'll write my own. I'll send out an announcement when development starts; I'd like to finish the library I'm working on first. For those interested in BASIC, if there are those among you with some experience with interpreters, I'm sure I could use some assistance in making a fast parsing routine. I've done something a little bit like this before that's pretty fast, but that program runs on modern computers with plenty of memory. 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". Ercan emailed me off list last week that he was interested in writing a BASIC environment. He may want to help you. Yes, I may help for BASIC interpreter. Thanks for replying, Ercan -- 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
Re: [Freedos-devel] Good BASIC interpreter?
Hello, Well, that being the case, I guess I'll write my own. I'll send out an announcement when development starts; I'd like to finish the library I'm working on first. For those interested in BASIC, if there are those among you with some experience with interpreters, I'm sure I could use some assistance in making a fast parsing routine. I've done something a little bit like this before that's pretty fast, but that program runs on modern computers with plenty of memory. 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". Ercan emailed me off list last week that he was interested in writing a BASIC environment. He may want to help you. Yes, I may help for BASIC interpreter. Thanks for replying, Ercan -- 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
Re: [Freedos-devel] Good BASIC interpreter?
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 11:29 AM David McMackins wrote: > Well, that being the case, I guess I'll write my own. I'll send out an > announcement when development starts; I'd like to finish the library I'm > working on first. > > For those interested in BASIC, if there are those among you with some > experience with interpreters, I'm sure I could use some assistance in > making a fast parsing routine. I've done something a little bit like > this before that's pretty fast, but that program runs on modern > computers with plenty of memory. > Ercan emailed me off list last week that he was interested in writing a BASIC environment. He may want to help you. -- 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
Re: [Freedos-devel] Good BASIC interpreter?
Well, that being the case, I guess I'll write my own. I'll send out an announcement when development starts; I'd like to finish the library I'm working on first. For those interested in BASIC, if there are those among you with some experience with interpreters, I'm sure I could use some assistance in making a fast parsing routine. I've done something a little bit like this before that's pretty fast, but that program runs on modern computers with plenty of memory. Happy Hacking, David E. McMackins II Supporting Member, Electronic Frontier Foundation (#2296972) Associate Member, Free Software Foundation (#12889) www.mcmackins.org www.delwink.com www.eff.org www.gnu.org www.fsf.org On 2018-07-12 11:08, Jim Hall wrote: We only have bwbasic and Free BASIC in the FreeDOS software list, and they are the only updated BASIC environments I know of. I don't code in BASIC these days, so this isn't my area of expertise. But Free BASIC is 32 bit. So I think bwbasic is the only one that meets your requirements. On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 5:50 PM David McMackins wrote: As someone who would like to write code that can be easily understood by users of other 80s computer systems, I prefer to write my scripts in BASIC. I've been using Bywater BASIC from the FreeDOS distribution, and it's quite good up until you want to start considering the outside world. In my particular example, SHELL() is supposed to return the exit code of the program that you tell it to run, but it seems to always return 0. I tried my damnedest looking at the source code for this program, but it is perhaps the messiest code I have ever looked at (and I've looked at mathematicians' code which is a sight to behold). I spent at least 2 hours digging and couldn't even find where the actual work was being done to execute these external commands, much less what is done with the exit code. I'll spare you my full rant about how bad it is in there. Anyway, are there any other decent BASIC interpreters to be found? My requirements are: a free software license, ability to run external commands, ability to run on 16-bit systems. Happy Hacking, David E. McMackins II Supporting Member, Electronic Frontier Foundation (#2296972) Associate Member, Free Software Foundation (#12889) www.mcmackins.org [1] www.delwink.com [2] www.eff.org [3] www.gnu.org [4] www.fsf.org [5] -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot [6] ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel [7] Links: -- [1] http://www.mcmackins.org [2] http://www.delwink.com [3] http://www.eff.org [4] http://www.gnu.org [5] http://www.fsf.org [6] http://sdm.link/slashdot [7] 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
Re: [Freedos-devel] Good BASIC interpreter?
We only have bwbasic and Free BASIC in the FreeDOS software list, and they are the only updated BASIC environments I know of. I don't code in BASIC these days, so this isn't my area of expertise. But Free BASIC is 32 bit. So I think bwbasic is the only one that meets your requirements. On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 5:50 PM David McMackins wrote: > As someone who would like to write code that can be easily understood by > users of other 80s computer systems, I prefer to write my scripts in > BASIC. I've been using Bywater BASIC from the FreeDOS distribution, and > it's quite good up until you want to start considering the outside world. > > In my particular example, SHELL() is supposed to return the exit code of > the program that you tell it to run, but it seems to always return 0. > > I tried my damnedest looking at the source code for this program, but it > is perhaps the messiest code I have ever looked at (and I've looked at > mathematicians' code which is a sight to behold). I spent at least 2 > hours digging and couldn't even find where the actual work was being > done to execute these external commands, much less what is done with the > exit code. I'll spare you my full rant about how bad it is in there. > > Anyway, are there any other decent BASIC interpreters to be found? My > requirements are: a free software license, ability to run external > commands, ability to run on 16-bit systems. > > Happy Hacking, > > David E. McMackins II > Supporting Member, Electronic Frontier Foundation (#2296972) > Associate Member, Free Software Foundation (#12889) > > www.mcmackins.org www.delwink.com > www.eff.org www.gnu.org www.fsf.org > > > -- > 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
