Hi,
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 10:54 AM dmccunney wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 9:37 PM Rugxulo wrote:
> >
> > Make is a fairly useful util and a great idea, but it's also a
> > portability nightmare (isn't everything?). So it's hard to do anything
> > perfectly.
>
> I have unfond memories of tr
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 9:37 PM Rugxulo wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 12:26 PM dmccunney wrote:
> >
> > > DJGPP make is mainly just a port of GNU make, is it not?
> >
> > Well, as part of a port of the entire Gnu/Linux toolchain, including
> > GCC. Things like Scons are displacing make in some
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 2:08 PM dmccunney wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 5:30 PM Rugxulo wrote:
> >
> > I don't think this particular BASIC is a compiler, only an
> > interpreter. (The very first BASIC was a compiler.)
>
> Doesn't matter. You can create an entire application in an
> inter
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 12:26 PM dmccunney wrote:
>
> > DJGPP make is mainly just a port of GNU make, is it not?
>
> Well, as part of a port of the entire Gnu/Linux toolchain, including
> GCC. Things like Scons are displacing make in some contexts, but make
> isn't going away.
Make is a fair
Hello Dennis,
As for the AWK portion, I have tested my script for munging the
GW-BASIC source files with both GNU awk (gawk) and mawk.
Were any changes required to your original script to get it to work as
expected in gawk *and* mawk?
To my surprise, no, not at all. :-)
Thank you!
--
https:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 5:30 PM Rugxulo wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 11:26 PM dmccunney wrote:
> > On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 10:35 PM Rugxulo wrote:
> >
> > > So no, I haven't tried rebuilding this (yet?), and I'm no *nix fiend,
> > > but I do think AWK is a cool tool, maybe cooler than GW-BASI
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:50 AM TK Chia wrote:
> >> On a side note, you're using GNU Make and AWK (to cross-build?). I do
> >> wonder if DJGPP Make (or even other AWK implementations) would work
> >> for us here.
>
> DJGPP make is mainly just a port of GNU make, is it not?
Well, as part of a port
Hello Rugxulo, hello Dennis,
>> What exactly does "semi-working" mean? It seems like graphics commands
>> aren't supported? That's no biggie (IMHO) as long as it can do simple
>> file I/O.
Well, direct commands seem to be working quite OK. But yes, large
chunks of functionality --- graphics, (P
PLONK
am Montag, 1. Juni 2020 um 23:28 schrieben Sie:
> Hi,
> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 11:26 PM dmccunney
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 10:35 PM Rugxulo wrote:
>>
>> > So no, I haven't tried rebuilding this (yet?), and I'm no *nix fiend,
>> > but I do think AWK is a cool tool, maybe co
Hi,
On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 11:26 PM dmccunney wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 10:35 PM Rugxulo wrote:
>
> > So no, I haven't tried rebuilding this (yet?), and I'm no *nix fiend,
> > but I do think AWK is a cool tool, maybe cooler than GW-BASIC (don't
> > kill me!).
>
> AWK is a cool tool. B
On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 10:35 PM Rugxulo wrote:
> So no, I haven't tried rebuilding this (yet?), and I'm no *nix fiend,
> but I do think AWK is a cool tool, maybe cooler than GW-BASIC (don't
> kill me!).
AWK is a cool tool. But it's not a full programming language for
building stand alone apps.
Hi, TK,
On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 9:37 AM TK Chia wrote:
>
> Thank you for the information. Building on Spinellis's work, I managed
> to get the source files to build under JWasm and JWlink,
Thank you. I never understand when people prefer ancient MASM over modern JWasm.
> after some source code
Hello Jim Hall,
Looks like this person is trying to get the source to build. You can follow
or contribute here:
https://github.com/dspinellis/GW-BASIC
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 2:29 PM Random Liegh via Freedos-user <
freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
I tried it with some old, old version
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 3:28 PM Random Liegh via Freedos-user
wrote:
>
> The point about MS only open sourcing early and irrelevant versions is valid;
> but there's another explanation. Those are the versions they have clear legal
> rights to. On Hacker News someone was saying they wished MS wou
Random Liegh via Freedos-user [23.05.2020 21:26]:
> I agree with this being a better alternative to bwbasic, of course since
> both are small and open source I'd request that you include both.
Not better (since bwbasic is cross-platform), but an alternative. And
more compatible with old BASIC pro
Looks like this person is trying to get the source to build. You can follow
or contribute here:
https://github.com/dspinellis/GW-BASIC
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 2:29 PM Random Liegh via Freedos-user <
freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> I tried it with some old, old versions of MASM and got
I tried it with some old, old versions of MASM and got exactly nowhere.
But then again, I have no idea what I'm doing.
Please let us know how it goes!
On 5/22/2020 6:32 AM, Louis Santillan wrote:
I think you're wrong dpirate. I haven't had time to test, but, I would
expect [0] to be able to us
I agree with this being a better alternative to bwbasic, of course since
both are small and open source I'd request that you include both.
The point about MS only open sourcing early and irrelevant versions is
valid; but there's another explanation. Those are the versions they have
clear legal
Jim Hall [22.05.2020 14:17]:
> As for GW-BASIC, FreeDOS already includes other BASIC interpreters and
> compilers with equivalent or better functionality, so I don't know that
> we need to add GW-BASIC. I'm not a BASIC programmer, so I'm open to
> suggestion on this. There's pros and cons either w
Hello Ralf,
But still, nobody should get their knickers in a twist just yet, as it
is an older version of GW-BASIC from 1983, while the latest version
(3.23) is from 1988. And the license kind of disallows to re-use the
code from the files, similar to that of the DOS 1.x/2.0 source they
publishe
On at 2020-05-22 07:58 -0700, Ralf Quint wrote:
> And the license kind of disallows to re-use the
> code from the files, similar to that of the DOS 1.x/2.0 source they
> published last year...
That's incorrect. Note that in the blog post they're referring to
"re-open-sourcing" the old MS-DOS files
On 5/22/2020 5:17 AM, Jim Hall wrote:
As for GW-BASIC, FreeDOS already includes other BASIC interpreters and
compilers with equivalent or better functionality, so I don't know
that we need to add GW-BASIC. I'm not a BASIC programmer, so I'm open
to suggestion on this. There's pros and cons ei
On 5/22/2020 5:10 AM, Deposite Pirate wrote:
This cannot be compiled to machine code because it's some kind of meta
assembler to generate assembler for various processor architectures and this
meta assembler is apparently not available. So unless someone goes through the
pain of reverse engine
I think you're wrong dpirate. I haven't had time to test, but, I would
expect [0] to be able to use MASM & LINK from MS-DOS 2.0 [1] to build
this. I plan to throw some cycles at this.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23269345
[1] https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS/tree/master/v2.0/bin
On Fri, 22 May 2020, Deposite Pirate wrote:
This cannot be compiled to machine code because it's some kind of meta
assembler to generate assembler for various processor architectures and
this meta assembler is apparently not available. So unless someone goes
through the pain of reverse enginee
It looked like this was the x86 output of the meta compiler. I'm going to
try to coax the Watcom Assembler into building it this evening.
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 8:38 AM Deposite Pirate
wrote:
> This cannot be compiled to machine code because it's some kind of meta
> assembler to generate assem
This cannot be compiled to machine code because it's some kind of meta
assembler to generate assembler for various processor architectures and this
meta assembler is apparently not available. So unless someone goes through the
pain of reverse engineering this meta assembler this is pretty much u
I saw that! Interesting to see Microsoft releasing more stuff as open
source, including more of their DOS catalog. I'd really like to see them
release Word for DOS source code too.
As for GW-BASIC, FreeDOS already includes other BASIC interpreters and
compilers with equivalent or better functional
Hey Folks!
How are you doing?
Microsoft just open sourced gw-basic
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/microsoft-open-sources-gw-basic/
the source code on github
https://github.com/microsoft/GW-BASIC
news from phoronix:
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Microsoft-Open-S
29 matches
Mail list logo
