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
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
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
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
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, Thomas Mueller wrote:
Snippet from Eric Auer:
OS/2 was a very sensible evolution of the MS DOS
API spirit. So that could be part of the answer.
And there are probably free open OS/2 clones :-)
There is a free open OS/2 clone-attempt at osfree.org .
They even now have a
Snippet from Eric Auer:
> OS/2 was a very sensible evolution of the MS DOS
> API spirit. So that could be part of the answer.
> And there are probably free open OS/2 clones :-)
There is a free open OS/2 clone-attempt at osfree.org .
They even now have a github site:
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
Hello,
CDP is not listed as being included on any of the FreeDOS 1.2 release media.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.2/compare.html
It is still available on the software repository.
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
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
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
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]
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, Eric Auer wrote:
OS/2 was a very sensible evolution of the MS DOS
API spirit. So that could be part of the answer.
And there are probably free open OS/2 clones :-)
If only, but maybe the recently-started "2ine" project would be useful to
such a thing.
-uso.
Hi Paul,
> Hi. About 30 years ago, someone made a comment
> on a group saying "until DOS is made 32-bit, DOS
> extenders are just a kludge".
Actually fd32 tries to be better than DOS + extender
by having a protected mode kernel, but it has been
a while since there was news from them and
Hi Ercan,
> FreeQB:
> FreeQB is replacement for Microsoft QBASIC. FreeQB is
> QBASIC.EXE for FreeDOS and compatible QBASIC. It may
> run 8086 and low memory.
A GOOD BASIC is hard to write! I recommend to use the
existing FreeBASIC and support their efforts towards
a good IDE for it and
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
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
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
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
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
Hi Ercan
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 11:14 AM Ercan Ersoy
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Will non-free packages (for example "cdp" package) that
> included on FreeDOS be removed for FreeDOS 1.3?
>
For reference, I think you are referring to this package: the command line
CD player for FreeDOS.
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
Yeah, 4DOS is another one that I think should be removed. If I remember
right, it has something in the license about commercial usage which
makes it nonfree. In the interest of making rare software available, I
think it would be fine to continue hosting it on the server, but it
should not be
Hi Ercan
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 3:47 AM Ercan Ersoy wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I created new project. My project is FDLOCAL.
>
> FDLOCAL is locale settings in a batch file for FreeDOS.
>
> It is useful for update language setting and keyboard
> setting.
>
> Project links:
>
>
Hello,
Will non-free packages (for example "cdp" package) that
included on FreeDOS be removed for FreeDOS 1.3?
Thanks for replies,
Ercan
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging
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,
> On Jul 12, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Jim Hall wrote:
> [...]
> Sep 30 - no new packages
> Oct 31 - no new languages
> Nov 30 - RC1
> Dec 31 - RC2
> Jan 31 - 1.3 release
Sounds fine to me.
--
Check out the vibrant tech
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 6:02 PM Jerome Shidel wrote:
> (..)
> Well, 1.2 was rather insane towards the final release. There were a bunch
> of language additions and feature requests that were added nearly right up
> until 1.2 final.
>
> That’s not happing again!
>
> We haven’t set any hard dates
As you said, the programs are GPL, but the game data is not. That's where
FreeDOOM came in, for example.
So we'd need to do something similar for these games to include them in
FreeDOS 1.3, for example.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 9:48 AM thraex wrote:
>
> As far as I know, the source code for
12-07-2018 02:01 tarihinde Jerome Shidel yazdı:
>> Doom, Hexen, Heretic! :)
>
> Those old commercial games would be great. But, unfortunately very few were
> ever released to open source or even a public license. So, we can not include
> most of those games.
>
> But, if you know of any,
30 matches
Mail list logo
