Michael Torrie wrote:
And you could DIM something with a
type, but normally it was the adorning suffix that determined type: A$
is a string, A% is an integer, A! (or A) is float, A# is double.
Some versions of 8-bit Microsoft Basic also had a way of
overriding the default type for a range of n
Tim Chase wrote:
In know that my first BASIC, Applesoft BASIC had the 2-character
names, and you had to load Integer Basic (with Ints in addition to the
standard Floats used in the BASIC provided by the ROM, a strange
choice).
That's not the way I remember it working. Integer Basic
provided onl
On 12/21/2013 5:28 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
In article ,
Terry Reedy wrote:
On 12/21/2013 10:10 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
On the last large C++ project I worked on, we decided (i.e. obeyed a
corporate mandate) to start using Coverity's static analysis tool on our
15 year old codebase. I learned a
Tim Chase wrote:
Doh, forgot momentarily that the 6502 had X, Y, and A, making THREE
registers. ooh, the luxury of 2-bit naming conventions! :-D
Two bits? That's enough to name FOUR registers!
We've been cheated!
--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
GW-BASIC was a weak language, but two significant characters is
definitely too few. I think it was eight.
That may have been true for MS-DOS era BASICS. If
you have a whopping 640KB for your program, then
it doesn't matter so much.
The 8-bit era was much more constr
In article ,
Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 12/21/2013 10:10 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
>
> > On the last large C++ project I worked on, we decided (i.e. obeyed a
> > corporate mandate) to start using Coverity's static analysis tool on our
> > 15 year old codebase. I learned a few things about static analy
On 12/21/2013 10:10 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
On the last large C++ project I worked on, we decided (i.e. obeyed a
corporate mandate) to start using Coverity's static analysis tool on our
15 year old codebase. I learned a few things about static analysis then.
CPython was about that old when Cover
On Saturday 21 December 2013 13:57:37 Tim Chase did opine:
> On 2013-12-21 08:43, Tim Chase wrote:
> > Then there's the 6502 assembly on that Apple with its 2 user-facing
> > registers (plus the Instruction Pointer and Stack Pointer), so I
> > guess you could say that it has 1-bit variable names ;
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article ,
> Tim Chase wrote:
>
>> In know that my first BASIC, Applesoft BASIC had the 2-character
>> names, and you had to load Integer Basic (with Ints in addition to the
>> standard Floats used in the BASIC provided by the ROM, a strange
On 2013-12-21 10:59, Roy Smith wrote:
> > In know that my first BASIC, Applesoft BASIC had the 2-character
> > names, and you had to load Integer Basic (with Ints in addition
> > to the standard Floats used in the BASIC provided by the ROM, a
> > strange choice).
>
> Why is it a strange choice?
In article ,
Tim Chase wrote:
> In know that my first BASIC, Applesoft BASIC had the 2-character
> names, and you had to load Integer Basic (with Ints in addition to the
> standard Floats used in the BASIC provided by the ROM, a strange
> choice).
Why is it a strange choice? If you're only goi
On 12/21/2013 01:17 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> GW-BASIC is what you're describing. Q-BASIC isn't the same as
> QuickBasic, though. Q-BASIC had subs and functions and stuff, but it
> was still, at its heart, BASIC. And you could DIM something with a
> type, but normally it was the adorning suffix t
In article ,
Dan Stromberg wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Mark Lawrence
> wrote:
> > On 20/12/2013 14:19, Roy Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> http://xkcd.com/1306/
> >>
> >
> > I believe that to be a very superficial like. They're unlike in that once
> > C++ people have compiled their code
On 2013-12-21 11:19, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
> GW-BASIC was a weak language, but two significant characters is
> definitely too few. I think it was eight. Never used QuickBasic, I
> went Turbo Pascal instead, which had 32 significant characters.
In know that my first BASIC, Applesoft BASIC ha
On 2013-12-21 08:43, Tim Chase wrote:
> Then there's the 6502 assembly on that Apple with its 2 user-facing
> registers (plus the Instruction Pointer and Stack Pointer), so I
> guess you could say that it has 1-bit variable names ;-)
Doh, forgot momentarily that the 6502 had X, Y, and A, making TH
On 21/12/2013 11:37, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 05:34:51 +, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 20/12/2013 14:19, Roy Smith wrote:
http://xkcd.com/1306/
I believe that to be a very superficial like. They're unlike in that
once C++ people have compiled their code they can head down
On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 00:18:33 -0800, Dan Stromberg wrote:
> C++ should use automated tests too, but is often used without because
> the compilers make it almost reasonable to do without.
For some definition of "reasonable" that I haven't come across before.
I'd like to see the compiler that can d
On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 05:34:51 +, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 20/12/2013 14:19, Roy Smith wrote:
>> http://xkcd.com/1306/
>>
>>
> I believe that to be a very superficial like. They're unlike in that
> once C++ people have compiled their code they can head down to the pub,
Ah, the good ol' "It co
Am 21.12.13 09:06, schrieb Gregory Ewing:
Michael Torrie wrote:
Maybe BASIC's of the 70s. But Not QB. QuickBasic was a pretty
impressive compiler in its day. Completely modern, structured language.
I may have been thinking of GW-BASIC. There was
definitely something that was pretty much an
On 21/12/2013 08:18, Dan Stromberg wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 20/12/2013 14:19, Roy Smith wrote:
http://xkcd.com/1306/
I believe that to be a very superficial like. They're unlike in that once
C++ people have compiled their code they can head down to t
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 20/12/2013 14:19, Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>> http://xkcd.com/1306/
>>
>
> I believe that to be a very superficial like. They're unlike in that once
> C++ people have compiled their code they can head down to the pub, but
> Python people have
On 21/12/2013 08:09, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 20/12/2013 14:19, Roy Smith wrote:
http://xkcd.com/1306/
I believe that to be a very superficial like. They're unlike in that
once C++ people have compiled their code they can head down to the
pub, but Python people have to
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Michael Torrie wrote:
>>
>> Maybe BASIC's of the 70s. But Not QB. QuickBasic was a pretty
>> impressive compiler in its day. Completely modern, structured language.
>
>
> I may have been thinking of GW-BASIC. There was
> definitely somethi
Michael Torrie wrote:
Maybe BASIC's of the 70s. But Not QB. QuickBasic was a pretty
impressive compiler in its day. Completely modern, structured language.
I may have been thinking of GW-BASIC. There was
definitely something that was pretty much an
old-school BASIC with line numbers, GOSUBS
Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 20/12/2013 14:19, Roy Smith wrote:
http://xkcd.com/1306/
I believe that to be a very superficial like. They're unlike in that
once C++ people have compiled their code they can head down to the pub,
but Python people have to stay at work testing because the compiler
On 20/12/2013 14:19, Roy Smith wrote:
http://xkcd.com/1306/
I believe that to be a very superficial like. They're unlike in that
once C++ people have compiled their code they can head down to the pub,
but Python people have to stay at work testing because the compiler
hasn't caught all pot
On 12/20/2013 02:44 PM, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
>> 20.12.13 16:19, Roy Smith написав(ла):
>>
>>> http://xkcd.com/1306/
>>
>> QBASIC$, not $QBASIC.
>
> Or just QB$. (Most BASICs of that era only regarded
> the first two characters as significant.)
Maybe BASIC's of the 70s.
Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
20.12.13 16:19, Roy Smith написав(ла):
http://xkcd.com/1306/
QBASIC$, not $QBASIC.
Or just QB$. (Most BASICs of that era only regarded
the first two characters as significant.)
--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
20.12.13 16:19, Roy Smith написав(ла):
http://xkcd.com/1306/
QBASIC$, not $QBASIC.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
http://xkcd.com/1306/
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
30 matches
Mail list logo
