3 ms·

C-64 BASIC V2 has all of the same important fundamentals that other BASICs of that era had. What mainly set it aside was the lack of dedicated graphical functio

C-64 BASIC V2 has all of the same important fundamentals that other BASICs of that era had. What mainly set it aside was the lack of dedicated graphical functions. What was available on the other home computers was on one hand too slow (or too limited) to be useful for pretty much any type of game development - forcing those platforms, too, to "cheat" by interacting with the hardware by POKEing around - but on the other hand fun and educational to explore graphics programming with. The exception would be the very capable BASIC of the Sharp MZ-700 which was of an entirely different class. For the C-64 there were plenty of third-party options.

the_af 3y ago
Well, the C64 itself was a capable machine, so it's no surprise extensions to BASIC had cool capabilities. The issue is that the provided BASIC sucked, no if or buts about it. I remember missing a simple LOCATE statement for placing text (text! not even graphics) that the Speccy's BASIC had, if I remember correctly. To me, missing dedicated graphical functions (or cool text functions like LOCATE) was a big miss precisely because the C64 was a multimedia computer. As a kid I wanted to do cool stuff with my C64 and had to resort to obscure (to me) POKE commands. "POKE" is not really BASIC, it's a cheat. I remember when I finally got my PC-XT clone, loaded with GW-BASIC. It had a DRAW statement! I could draw pixels with easy to understand commands, no POKE! My mind was blown. I could even forget I was using a monochrome CRT... I wouldn't get my colors back until a few years later.
- UncleSlacky 3y ago
  Spectrum BASIC had PRINT AT (which is probably what you're thinking of). The C64 would probably have to use control characters to achieve the same thing in BASIC if it's anything like PET BASIC (inverted playing card suit characters etc.).
  - daneel_w 3y ago
    Yep, stringing together control characters, or setting the cursor position in the screen editor's memory with two POKEs.
  - the_af 3y ago
    Ah, yes! PRINT AT. I didn't know PETSCII had control characters to place the cursor, but in any case, I think everyone will agree that's more obscure than a nice high-level PRINT AT statement. (Still, I'd love to go back in time and tell my young self that I could use control characters instead!) PS: pretty sure there was at least one BASIC that had a LOCATE command, or am I confusing programming languages? PPS: well, duh! It was GW-BASIC that had LOCATE. No wonder I remembered the command, GW-BASIC was my first true love and the first language with which I actually programmed games.
- daneel_w 3y ago
  My opinion from having written so much in all kinds of BASICs back then is that it is convenience more than unlocking doors. Learning, for example, the two memory addresses to POKE to on the C-64 to move the cursor to a fixed position is a tool one learned no different than learning the more convenient alternatives of "PRINTAT" and "LOCATE". But I do agree that drawing lines etc. directly in BASIC provided a lot of fun. BASIC, by its nature, was the real limitation. > "POKE" is not really BASIC, it's a cheat. I don't understand why you don't consider it BASIC, or why it's cheating. Practically every BASIC out there from that era allows for direct interaction with the computer's memory. It's fundamental functionality of the lowest level possible, and the diametrical opposite of cheating.
  - the_af 3y ago
    It's because POKE in C64 felt to me like an excuse not to implement the actual command, "we give up, here's how you interact directly with the hardware". It feels the wrong level of abstraction. I now understand why they went this route (a combination of a poor licensing deal and the need to keep the BASIC implementation small enough to fit in memory), but it still left a bad taste. And I'm speaking as 10-year old me, who didn't yet understand programming languages: Commodore BASIC felt incomplete.
pjmlp 3y ago
Only the 8 bit BASIC fundamentals. Original BASIC was actually developed with a JIT compiler, only the 8 bit home versions were purely interpreted, and mainframe BASIC already supported structured programming and AOT compilation by the time 8 bit home computers were taking over, e.g. VAX BASIC. I think many of us that started on 8 bit as kids, and eventually used something else on 16 bit computers aren't aware of this.

the_af 3y ago

Well, the C64 itself was a capable machine, so it's no surprise extensions to BASIC had cool capabilities. The issue is that the provided BASIC sucked, no if or buts about it. I remember missing a simple LOCATE statement for placing text (text! not even graphics) that the Speccy's BASIC had, if I remember correctly. To me, missing dedicated graphical functions (or cool text functions like LOCATE) was a big miss precisely because the C64 was a multimedia computer. As a kid I wanted to do cool stuff with my C64 and had to resort to obscure (to me) POKE commands. "POKE" is not really BASIC, it's a cheat. I remember when I finally got my PC-XT clone, loaded with GW-BASIC. It had a DRAW statement! I could draw pixels with easy to understand commands, no POKE! My mind was blown. I could even forget I was using a monochrome CRT... I wouldn't get my colors back until a few years later.

UncleSlacky 3y ago
Spectrum BASIC had PRINT AT (which is probably what you're thinking of). The C64 would probably have to use control characters to achieve the same thing in BASIC if it's anything like PET BASIC (inverted playing card suit characters etc.).
- daneel_w 3y ago
  Yep, stringing together control characters, or setting the cursor position in the screen editor's memory with two POKEs.
- the_af 3y ago
  Ah, yes! PRINT AT. I didn't know PETSCII had control characters to place the cursor, but in any case, I think everyone will agree that's more obscure than a nice high-level PRINT AT statement. (Still, I'd love to go back in time and tell my young self that I could use control characters instead!) PS: pretty sure there was at least one BASIC that had a LOCATE command, or am I confusing programming languages? PPS: well, duh! It was GW-BASIC that had LOCATE. No wonder I remembered the command, GW-BASIC was my first true love and the first language with which I actually programmed games.
daneel_w 3y ago
My opinion from having written so much in all kinds of BASICs back then is that it is convenience more than unlocking doors. Learning, for example, the two memory addresses to POKE to on the C-64 to move the cursor to a fixed position is a tool one learned no different than learning the more convenient alternatives of "PRINTAT" and "LOCATE". But I do agree that drawing lines etc. directly in BASIC provided a lot of fun. BASIC, by its nature, was the real limitation. > "POKE" is not really BASIC, it's a cheat. I don't understand why you don't consider it BASIC, or why it's cheating. Practically every BASIC out there from that era allows for direct interaction with the computer's memory. It's fundamental functionality of the lowest level possible, and the diametrical opposite of cheating.
- the_af 3y ago
  It's because POKE in C64 felt to me like an excuse not to implement the actual command, "we give up, here's how you interact directly with the hardware". It feels the wrong level of abstraction. I now understand why they went this route (a combination of a poor licensing deal and the need to keep the BASIC implementation small enough to fit in memory), but it still left a bad taste. And I'm speaking as 10-year old me, who didn't yet understand programming languages: Commodore BASIC felt incomplete.

pjmlp 3y ago

Only the 8 bit BASIC fundamentals. Original BASIC was actually developed with a JIT compiler, only the 8 bit home versions were purely interpreted, and mainframe BASIC already supported structured programming and AOT compilation by the time 8 bit home computers were taking over, e.g. VAX BASIC. I think many of us that started on 8 bit as kids, and eventually used something else on 16 bit computers aren't aware of this.