This is cool. Granted, the language presented here is absolutely horrid, but at the same time so much better than what was available at the time. The ZX Spectrum was a quirky ball of low-cost hacks (the Ferranti ULA that implemented most hardware stuff was driven beyond its intended use hard, with brilliant-yet-horrible features such as using the same pin for audio input and output...). Its BASIC lacked most features that are taken for granted these days, like control blocks: GOTO-another-line-number was the only way back in the days, and the resulting spaghetti code was... rough.
Inline assembly, which also hadn't been invented yet other than by embedding raw opcodes in DATA statements, is absolutely required to get the performance required for gaming: I still cherish my HiSoft Devpac tape (officially purchased and shipped from the UK at great expense and requiring extensive negotiations with the local customs people, for whom this entire 'software' thing was a bit new...) and Z80 assembly reference (pirated from a library with the school photocopier). So, in one sense, the limited BASIC was a blessing: it required you to really get to know your machine, which is probably the first and last time in my life that happened: I've not considered the timing implications of the CRT and optimized my code around that for a long time.
Nice to see people are still enjoying a 44-year-old platform!
Minor nitpick: inline assembly had been invented already. Indeed it had been implemented and shipped for the Acorn Atom in 1980. The Atom packed a quirky but effective BASIC with an inline 6502 assembler into its 8Kb ROM. And a BASIC with rather more features, and an inline assembler, was shipped with the BBC Micro, slightly ahead of the ZX Spectrum launch. Folks on the Cambridge scene had the chops to do better versions of BASIC, they just didn't make it into any Sinclair products until the QL. (And, a later Sinclair product, the Z88, of course, shipped with the Z80 version of BBC Basic a few years later, this time with an inline Z80 assembler.)
I’m the author of the compiler. I started it 18yrs ago, well before AI, mainly as a PoC.
But people started to ask for more and more features …
The compiler tries hard to mimic the original Sinclair BASIC but also allows a more modern syntax similar to QBasic / FreeBASIC.
Even 40+ years later, it remains one of my favourite ever BASIC dialects. I did badly miss integer variables, but it was IMHO the most thoughtful and considered extension of Sinclair BASIC ever made.
I am a little sad that the SAM Coupé's BASIC, which Wright also wrote, has never had a FOSS clone.
> I wrote most of the Wikipedia article about BetaBASIC
If you still want to work on it, add sample code. I think that’s a must for a programming language page.
I see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_BASIC doesn’t, either but at least it has a list of commands. I still prefer sample code, though. It is the better way to present things, even though it will give an incomplete overview of capabilities.
So, yeah, apparently my comment comes off a bit more negative than intended, but: absolutely great work, and the improvements make this an actually-very-usable solution for the platform.
No offense taken.
I plan to improve the compiler and add other target machines (currently it generates Z80 asm files already).
But I refuse to use AI in this side project :( Just to enjoy it for the sake of coding (you know), so some
inrovements will take some time…
Even though the language is 'horrid' I have a weird attraction to it. I have been programming in various BASIC languages for more than 20 years. The last years I maintained a self developed application for my Mom in Visual Basic. Somehow I got things done in that language.
That was the same thing that any 8 bit BASIC of the era.
I have yet my books of learning BASIC (for kids), and there for ZX Spectrum, Commodore, Apple 2, etc... And only had that. The only thing that I remeber lacking compared againts other BASICs, was the ON GOTO, ON GOSUB and ELSE . On the control of flow in BASIC... That is all.
I will not see something more advanced (and without numbering the lines), like while and do loops, or select case, proper subrutines and functions, until I touch Turbo BASIC (and QBASIC)
There was a wild range in capabilities in the various BASIC implementations of that time. I grew up with an Amstrad CPC6128, it came with Locomotive BASIC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive_BASIC), which was very capable: at one point I had written a multiplayer game with background music in it, without needing a single PEEK, POKE or CALL. The few times I saw Commodore BASIC programs it was littered with those three.
I loved Sinclair Basic back in the day despite its limitations - it was my gateway drug into software and systems. When I discovered Boriel Basic a few weeks ago it allowed me relive my childhood, and finally finish making a game for the ZX Spectrum (albeit a remake):
This is cool. Granted, the language presented here is absolutely horrid, but at the same time so much better than what was available at the time. The ZX Spectrum was a quirky ball of low-cost hacks (the Ferranti ULA that implemented most hardware stuff was driven beyond its intended use hard, with brilliant-yet-horrible features such as using the same pin for audio input and output...). Its BASIC lacked most features that are taken for granted these days, like control blocks: GOTO-another-line-number was the only way back in the days, and the resulting spaghetti code was... rough.
Inline assembly, which also hadn't been invented yet other than by embedding raw opcodes in DATA statements, is absolutely required to get the performance required for gaming: I still cherish my HiSoft Devpac tape (officially purchased and shipped from the UK at great expense and requiring extensive negotiations with the local customs people, for whom this entire 'software' thing was a bit new...) and Z80 assembly reference (pirated from a library with the school photocopier). So, in one sense, the limited BASIC was a blessing: it required you to really get to know your machine, which is probably the first and last time in my life that happened: I've not considered the timing implications of the CRT and optimized my code around that for a long time.
Nice to see people are still enjoying a 44-year-old platform!
Minor nitpick: inline assembly had been invented already. Indeed it had been implemented and shipped for the Acorn Atom in 1980. The Atom packed a quirky but effective BASIC with an inline 6502 assembler into its 8Kb ROM. And a BASIC with rather more features, and an inline assembler, was shipped with the BBC Micro, slightly ahead of the ZX Spectrum launch. Folks on the Cambridge scene had the chops to do better versions of BASIC, they just didn't make it into any Sinclair products until the QL. (And, a later Sinclair product, the Z88, of course, shipped with the Z80 version of BBC Basic a few years later, this time with an inline Z80 assembler.)
I’m the author of the compiler. I started it 18yrs ago, well before AI, mainly as a PoC. But people started to ask for more and more features … The compiler tries hard to mimic the original Sinclair BASIC but also allows a more modern syntax similar to QBasic / FreeBASIC.
> also allows a more modern syntax similar to QBasic / FreeBASIC.
This is probably a too-wild idea, but what I personally would love to see would be to adopt the extensions of Dr Andy White's BetaBASIC.
I wrote most of the Wikipedia article about BetaBASIC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_BASIC
Even 40+ years later, it remains one of my favourite ever BASIC dialects. I did badly miss integer variables, but it was IMHO the most thoughtful and considered extension of Sinclair BASIC ever made.
I am a little sad that the SAM Coupé's BASIC, which Wright also wrote, has never had a FOSS clone.
> I wrote most of the Wikipedia article about BetaBASIC
If you still want to work on it, add sample code. I think that’s a must for a programming language page.
I see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_BASIC doesn’t, either but at least it has a list of commands. I still prefer sample code, though. It is the better way to present things, even though it will give an incomplete overview of capabilities.
18 years ago! I haven't used it myself but I know there are plenty of people who love it.
So, yeah, apparently my comment comes off a bit more negative than intended, but: absolutely great work, and the improvements make this an actually-very-usable solution for the platform.
No offense taken. I plan to improve the compiler and add other target machines (currently it generates Z80 asm files already). But I refuse to use AI in this side project :( Just to enjoy it for the sake of coding (you know), so some inrovements will take some time…
Even though the language is 'horrid' I have a weird attraction to it. I have been programming in various BASIC languages for more than 20 years. The last years I maintained a self developed application for my Mom in Visual Basic. Somehow I got things done in that language.
Don't talk bad about ZX Basic. It had :
- IF THEN
- FOR
- GOSUB / RETURN
- DEFN
- GOTO
- READ / DATA
That was the same thing that any 8 bit BASIC of the era.
I have yet my books of learning BASIC (for kids), and there for ZX Spectrum, Commodore, Apple 2, etc... And only had that. The only thing that I remeber lacking compared againts other BASICs, was the ON GOTO, ON GOSUB and ELSE . On the control of flow in BASIC... That is all.
I will not see something more advanced (and without numbering the lines), like while and do loops, or select case, proper subrutines and functions, until I touch Turbo BASIC (and QBASIC)
There was a wild range in capabilities in the various BASIC implementations of that time. I grew up with an Amstrad CPC6128, it came with Locomotive BASIC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive_BASIC), which was very capable: at one point I had written a multiplayer game with background music in it, without needing a single PEEK, POKE or CALL. The few times I saw Commodore BASIC programs it was littered with those three.
I loved Sinclair Basic back in the day despite its limitations - it was my gateway drug into software and systems. When I discovered Boriel Basic a few weeks ago it allowed me relive my childhood, and finally finish making a game for the ZX Spectrum (albeit a remake):
https://github.com/nateProjects/adarkroom-zx
Sorry, but the link is incorrect. Which is link the correct?
Oops - fixed it now - I'd set it to private while developing, but it works enough to play now.
Most important thing of basic was not language or compiler.
It's that you could LIST. Then move cursor up and edit and press enter. (Not found in ZX, but still ok).
Next, you could list, and draw CIRCLE over the program listing. It was live, like smalltalk, but simpler.
Reproducing language variants without immersion described above is not full story.