Hello Steve, hello Random Liegh,
Development; your decisions work for me. I never use perl on dos and I try to avoid djgpp and GCC-IA16. I end up needing NASM, JWASM, OW, UPX and FreeBASIC. Would it be possible to replace bwbasic with gw-basic?
Technology-wise, I would think that Open Watcom is the most complete toolchain (when compared to DJGPP and IA-16 GCC). If OW's license were FSF-compatible, I would probably have proposed to make OW an "official" toolchain.
The open version of GW-BASIC only supports DOS 1.x APIs so far, for what it's worth. The general consensus seems to be, it's not worth trying to reconstitute that code...a shame. I'd like to see it reconstituted up to 3.2.
Well, consensus or not, the idea of a GW-BASIC interpreter which is bug-compatible with, well, GW-BASIC, does sound pretty appealing to me. :-) I think my current "reconstitution" of GW-BASIC (https://github.com/tkchia/GW-BASIC/) is quite usable. It is probably still not yet near a stage where it can "replace" bwbasic though. Besides using only DOS 1.x file I/O (which means it does not know about subdirectories), it is also missing serial port I/O support *a la `OPEN "COM1:9600,E,7" AS #1' etc.), which seems to be quite a large chunk of functionality. (It might turn out to be feasible to modify the code to use DOS 2.x file I/O syscalls --- they are actually more convenient than the old syscalls --- but I have yet to try that.) Thank you! -- https://github.com/tkchia/ _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
