4 ms·

> They had the best BASIC interpreter in the business[0] and everyone licensed from them already. Commodore 64 owners may have a different opinion.... :P

KerrAvon 4y ago
So would some Apple II owners. I don’t think MS BASIC was the best in the business, but it was the most ubiquitous. If only Woz had been willing to add floating point support to his BASIC. He was perfectly capable of it! Would’ve saved Apple a lot of heartache later.
- rowanG077 4y ago
  Why was Woz unwilling to add floating point support?
  - laumars 4y ago
    He wasn’t unwilling. The story I heard was that it’s the usual tail of time constraints. It was quicker to license Microsoft BASIC than it was to add floating points to Integer BASIC.
zabzonk 4y ago
c64 Basic was licensed from Microsoft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_BASIC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_BASIC
guenthert 4y ago
Not sure about that. C64 BASIC was not all that impressive even then. Mid-eighties, those interested in BASIC programming on the C64 preferred Simon's BASIC.
timbit42 4y ago
The 6502 version of MS BASIC wasn't as good as the 8080 / Z80 version.
themadturk 4y ago
I have heard that Commodore BASIC was MS BASIC 2.0, so somewhat behind the times when it came out.
- lproven 4y ago
  It was. This was because Commodore was trying to keep the cost of the machine down, and BASIC 2 (along with the Commodore "kernal" [sic], the closest thing the computer had to an OS) fitted into an 8 kB ROM. CBM BASIC 2 was terrible. It didn't support any of the C64's excellent (for the time) sound and graphics. It didn't have structured command (IF... THEN... ELSE, REPEAT... UNTIL, WHILE... WEND etc.) or named procedures or local variables or anything. But it was small. This terrible BASIC is why most of the world became convinced that BASIC was a bad programming language. Other contemporaneous 8-bit home computers had much better BASICs, notably the Acorn 8-bits, but also Sinclair, Oric and others. https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/71381.html https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/71381.html

KerrAvon 4y ago

So would some Apple II owners. I don’t think MS BASIC was the best in the business, but it was the most ubiquitous. If only Woz had been willing to add floating point support to his BASIC. He was perfectly capable of it! Would’ve saved Apple a lot of heartache later.

rowanG077 4y ago
Why was Woz unwilling to add floating point support?
- laumars 4y ago
  He wasn’t unwilling. The story I heard was that it’s the usual tail of time constraints. It was quicker to license Microsoft BASIC than it was to add floating points to Integer BASIC.

zabzonk 4y ago

c64 Basic was licensed from Microsoft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_BASIC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_BASIC

guenthert 4y ago

Not sure about that. C64 BASIC was not all that impressive even then. Mid-eighties, those interested in BASIC programming on the C64 preferred Simon's BASIC.

timbit42 4y ago

The 6502 version of MS BASIC wasn't as good as the 8080 / Z80 version.

themadturk 4y ago

I have heard that Commodore BASIC was MS BASIC 2.0, so somewhat behind the times when it came out.

lproven 4y ago
It was. This was because Commodore was trying to keep the cost of the machine down, and BASIC 2 (along with the Commodore "kernal" [sic], the closest thing the computer had to an OS) fitted into an 8 kB ROM. CBM BASIC 2 was terrible. It didn't support any of the C64's excellent (for the time) sound and graphics. It didn't have structured command (IF... THEN... ELSE, REPEAT... UNTIL, WHILE... WEND etc.) or named procedures or local variables or anything. But it was small. This terrible BASIC is why most of the world became convinced that BASIC was a bad programming language. Other contemporaneous 8-bit home computers had much better BASICs, notably the Acorn 8-bits, but also Sinclair, Oric and others. https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/71381.html https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/71381.html