Which 'free' Basic language program?

[keitha1200]

I was wondering what the general opinion is about Basic language programmes such as:

Pure Basic (downloadable full and free programme) Amiga version

or

SDL Basic

[P-J]

Originally Posted by keitha1200

Pure Basic (downloadable full and free programme) Amiga version

I can't comment on the others, but I found Purebasic to be a nightmare. Crash-prone, resource intensive and generally horrible to use.

[keitha1200]

Thanks for the reply P-J

What language would you recommend to someone who was very fluent in Speccy basic, and touched on Asm (many, many years ago), yet the language is still good for ports or clones?

[Lonewolf10]

I did briefly use SDL Basic (on my laptop) a few years back, and even helped update the documentation - English was not the developers first language. Sadly, as it had no way to compile the programs into standalone executables (anyone running SDL Basic programs had to download SDL Basic editor) at the time, I went back to Amiga programming.
Also the SDL Basic forums were (are?) very quiet and last time I was on there, heavily hijacked by spammers

The language itself is based on AMOS/AMOS Pro and is easy to pickup, especially if you have programmed in Basic before. It was great for developing your own programs, as long as you weren't planning to distribute them.


Regards,
Lonewolf10

[Amiga Forever]

Free Programming Language are

FreeBasic

ThinBasic

Programming Language that are not free are

Blitz 3D
Blitz Max

[Dunny]

Originally Posted by keitha1200

Thanks for the reply P-J

What language would you recommend to someone who was very fluent in Speccy basic, and touched on Asm (many, many years ago), yet the language is still good for ports or clones?

I would recommend SpecBAS - based on Speccy BASIC and way more powerful. Fully open-source, the linux version depends on SDL for graphical output (and SDL_Image for image import), all that remains is for some brave soul to port it to the Amiga ;-)

http://www.specbas.co.uk/

D.

[Thorham]

Definitely FreeBasic. Works under Windows and Linux. Very powerful and fast, (no, really) and doesn't need those typical old school basic techniques (Amos and those 8 bit Basics come to mind), although it does allow them (useful for getting used to the compiler and editor).

Has some object orientation features and allows writing in a similar way as C (including DLL usage and system calls), but with Basic syntax, while also retaining the more easy Basic functions.

Has reasonably good documentation, nice editor, useful examples and an active, helpful forum.

Get it from here: http://www.freebasic.net/

Originally Posted by keitha1200

What language would you recommend to someone who was very fluent in Speccy basic, and touched on Asm (many, many years ago), yet the language is still good for ports or clones?

Skip the Spectrum Basic stuff. This is more or less just like the other old school 8 bit Basics. When you already know this kind of programming, then you should leave it behind, and use something more advanced.

[keitha1200]

Thanks for the feedback guys

[Dunny]

Originally Posted by Thorham

Skip the Spectrum Basic stuff. This is more or less just like the other old school 8 bit Basics. When you already know this kind of programming, then you should leave it behind, and use something more advanced.

Why?

I personally have coded in x86 asm, ARM asm, object Pascal (Delphi) and C/C++ for nearly 15 years - and have now gone back to Speccy BASIC. You're saying I shouldn't do that?

Why?

D.

[Coagulus]

Originally Posted by Dunny

Why?

I personally have coded in x86 asm, ARM asm, object Pascal (Delphi) and C/C++ for nearly 15 years - and have now gone back to Speccy BASIC. You're saying I shouldn't do that?

Why?

D.

agreed, if a language does what you want, it's the one you should use. I also have coded in C/C++, E, asm, and just prefer coding in basic variants. I find I can read the code easier.

the equivalent of print "hello" can be done in any language!

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by Dunny

Why?

I personally have coded in x86 asm, ARM asm, object Pascal (Delphi) and C/C++ for nearly 15 years - and have now gone back to Speccy BASIC.

Then I'm sure you know how limited those 8 bit BASICs are in comparison to things like assembler and C. What I want to know is why did you go back?

Originally Posted by Dunny

You're saying I shouldn't do that?

Why?

D.

No, I'm not saying that and you should do what you want

[Photon]

Can't help you choose since my only experience of BASIC on Amiga is a quick test with the Microsoft one (which must be the worst BASIC on Amiga...) and a brief stint with HiSoft BASIC to make a sine curve generator when I was a lamer. IIRC the HiSoft one was better, even if you perhaps can't do the same stuff as in AMOS(?) in it.

But I'm glad to see this perfect use of our new forums , it might have drowned or gotten pushed off the first page in the single forum we had before.

Thorham: can't find an Amiga port on that page? Surely it's a request for an Amiga BASIC?

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by Photon

Thorham: can't find an Amiga port on that page? Surely it's a request for an Amiga BASIC?

Perhaps it is There's no Amiga port that I'm aware of.

[Dunny]

Originally Posted by Thorham

Then I'm sure you know how limited those 8 bit BASICs are in comparison to things like assembler and C. What I want to know is why did you go back?

Because it's more fun, purely and simply. It's easy to knock up a very quick prototype of an algorithm in BASIC. It doesn't require any set up code - no window creation, immediate access to a graphics surface...

And it also changes the way you think about your code. Using line numbers constrains you wonderfully, resulting in very concise code. I wrote a simple R-Type engine in 25 lines of BASIC, for example. I love it. The best part is that I wrote the entire interpreter and the IDE myself!

D.

[Lonewolf10]

Originally Posted by Dunny

Because it's more fun, purely and simply. It's easy to knock up a very quick prototype of an algorithm in BASIC. It doesn't require any set up code - no window creation, immediate access to a graphics surface...

I agree.

For learning new things or just creating simple tools you can knock them up in a few hours.


Regards,
Lonewolf10

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by Dunny

Because it's more fun, purely and simply.

That is very subjective, so to each their own

Originally Posted by Dunny

It's easy to knock up a very quick prototype of an algorithm in BASIC. It doesn't require any set up code - no window creation, immediate access to a graphics surface...

That's why I use FreeBasic

Originally Posted by Dunny

And it also changes the way you think about your code. Using line numbers constrains you wonderfully, resulting in very concise code.

But is concise code good code? Is it maintainable? Is it fast? To me line numbers are something to avoid at all cost. Again, highly subjective.

Because of this subjectiveness, it's a good thing that multiple types of Basic have been recommended. Some people dislike one type of Basic, others will dislike another kind

[Samurai_Crow]

I'll put my vote in for AmigaE then. Once you get used to using := for all assignments, it's as much like any object-oriented BASIC you've ever seen and the OOP features are optional also.

If you want to use it on other platforms there is PortablE but it currently generates C++ as a backend. Maybe someday it'll have a runtime library so the resultant binaries will be smaller.

[keitha1200]

Originally Posted by Photon

Thorham: can't find an Amiga port on that page? Surely it's a request for an Amiga BASIC?

I thought it was just me too Def Amiga basic

I understand about different tastes etc but I had a good look at Python and, even watched the 2-3 hour Goggle Python presentation

Hmm learning something like Python to me! is like spending a nice sunny afternoon washing and polishing a Ford Focus, where learning Amiga basic is more like spending the afternoon washing and polishing a classical sports car. One's certainly more productive and useful than the other but is still rather dull and boring

But 'yes' it's def down to individual taste. Thanks for the input tho

[Samurai_Crow]

AmigaE and the associated registered freeware compiler are probably the best Amiga-specific programming environment out there. The E-modules that come with the first package I linked are quite extensive especially for writing regular applications.

If you want to write games though, you'd probably be better off with Blitz Basic or AmosPro simply because there are more game-related packages available for Blitz and Amos.

[Doc Mindie]

Why code in a dead BASIC? Let's go all the way, shall we? Why code on a dead computer in the first place? Why Spccy? C=64? Acorn BBC? Amiga? ST?

The answer is quite simple: the more limitations the computer have, the more you have to think about how to get the most out of the computer. And that's where the "fun" part comes in. Sure, "anyone" can make a flashy demo on a 6core 4GHz computer with 16GB RAM.

BUT: To create the "same" demo on a Speccy with only a 6502 (or was it the Z-80?) at 1MHz and 48kB, Now THAT is satisfaction.

like people said to me back in the 98 when I used my Amiga exclusively on the 'net and everywhere else "you can't use the WWW on the Amiga, that's why I have Windows" to which I replied "You bastard, I'll have to uninstall my IP-stack and browser and ftp client and IRC client and NNTP-client now, seing as you tell me I can't do it"

It's the satisfaction of seeing things work in that limited environment, when people ell you it's "impossible." the number of times peoples' jaws drops to the ground whenI've done the "impossible" for a long time on my Amiga, that's why I keep using the Amiga. quickly wipes the stupid smirks off of their faces.

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by Doc Mindie

Why code in a dead BASIC?

Old 8 bit BASIC interpreters are slow and unstructured, no fun to be had for me.

Originally Posted by Doc Mindie

Why code on a dead computer in the first place?

For fun and the challenge.

[Doc Mindie]

Originally Posted by Thorham

Old 8 bit BASIC interpreters are slow and unstructured, no fun to be had for me.

For fun and the challenge.

Excactly. some people think the C=64 BASIC is fun and challenging. Some people thinks AmigaBASIC is fun and challenging

And there's even perverts who thinks Windows if fun, it's certainly a challenge to stay calm, though.

[Lonewolf10]

Originally Posted by Doc Mindie

BUT: To create the "same" demo on a Speccy with only a 6502 (or was it the Z-80?) at 1MHz and 48kB, Now THAT is satisfaction.

Spectrums (Z80, Z81, Spectrum 48K, Spectrum 128K (+2/+2a/+2b/+2c/+3)) all had the Z80 at the helm


Regards,
Lonewolf10

[Doc Mindie]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf10

Spectrums (Z80, Z81, Spectrum 48K, Spectrum 128K (+2/+2a/+2b/+2c/+3)) all had the Z80 at the helm


Regards,
Lonewolf10

The principle remains, though... to make a superstunning demo on such a limited piece of hardware, is a real challenge and also (I would believe) for most people, give a real satisfaction.

Doesn't really matter what language you're coding in, though the more limited, the more the challenge, and thus the more satisfaction when you see it working ^^

And of course... if you make... say... "State of the Art" for the C=64 utilising only C=64 BASIC, your epeen will grow to extreme proportions :P

[Coagulus]

Originally Posted by Doc Mindie

Doesn't really matter what language you're coding in, though the more limited, the more the challenge, and thus the more satisfaction when you see it working ^^

true, I have been most chuffed when I've accomplished something the language I've used isn't supposed to be able to do! (Usually a BASIC!)

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by Doc Mindie

Excactly. some people think the C=64 BASIC is fun and challenging. Some people thinks AmigaBASIC is fun and challenging

Okay, okay, I got it It's just that I only use 680x0 for fun and the challenge, while I use FreeBasic on the peecee as a utility language, so I never expected people to enjoy old Basic dialects.

Originally Posted by Doc Mindie

And there's even perverts who thinks Windows if fun, it's certainly a challenge to stay calm, though.

Really? Hard to believe...

[Doc Mindie]

There was an article about it on the Onion, so it must be true :P

[Eygthene]

Having got my Raspberry Pi up and running, I was hoping (as a 74 year-old) to be able to draw on past experience so as to be able to drive the GPIO in BASIC. However I quickly discovered that bwBASIC does not have the necessary PEEK and POKE statements and GWBASIC only handles 8 bit registers.

Is there a BASIC which will run under the Raspberry Pi version of LINUX and which will enable me to load 32 bit registers having 32 bit Adresses?

[ajk]

I am not an expert on the Raspberry Pi, and not really Linux either, but as far as I can imagine, you can't have old-style PEEK and POKE commands in a program running on Linux. Each of the programs will have a virtual address space and can't operate on the actual physical addresses directly - any access to peripherals would have to go through the operating system (Linux).

This is not to say that a Basic interpreter that emulates this behaviour somehow might not exist, but I don't know of such a thing at least.

[Eygthene]

Thanks very much ajk. I have had some great advice from posters on my ybw.com forum (Practical Boat Owner!) and they have explained that I need to "export" the GPIO pins with a bit of LINUX. Then I can access the direction and value files of the GPIO pins through a BASIC OPEN statement and I am trying to use INPUT# and PRINT# to read and write into those files.

One of the posters is kindly having a look at my first attempt at the code, so I'm waiting to see what he says.

I lent the R-Pi and the Input/output experimental board to a pal, so I will have to get it back before I can try out the code.