3 ms·

Microsoft didn’t “port” their software in the traditional sense. It was a clean rewrite for each platform. For instance, the Apple // graphics memory layout w

• timbit42 4y ago
  It was not a clean rewrite for each platform. It wasn't even a clean rewrite for each processor. Forensic analysis proves this. For example, the MICROSOFT! Easter egg from the 6502 version of Microsoft BASIC remained in the 6809 version even though there is no longer code to display it. Source: https://www.pagetable.com/?p=43 https://www.pagetable.com/?p=43
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• skissane 4y ago
  > Microsoft didn’t “port” their software in the traditional sense. It was a clean rewrite for each platform. Not true. See https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/microsoft-open-sources-gw-basic/ https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/microsoft-open-so... in particular: > This source was ‘translated’? > Each of the assembly source files contains a header stating This translation created 10-Feb-83 by Version 4.3 > Since the Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) of the early processors used in home and personal computers weren’t spectacularly different from one another, Microsoft was able to generate a substantial amount of the code for a port from the sources of a master implementation. (Alas, sorry, we’re unable to open-source the ISA translator.) You also write: > For instance, the Apple // graphics memory layout was really weird. That’s largely irrelevant because the core of Microsoft BASIC was text-only and had no graphics support. Graphics support was an extension, which was highly platform-specific, since platforms varied greatly in terms of their graphical capabilities and how those capabilities were implemented
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]