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.
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"
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
> >
> >
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
> 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
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
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
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, 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
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
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,
21 matches
Mail list logo
