Fancy a BASIC compiler?

[Ser Olmy]

Well, you did start with a warning that you were going to rant, so I hope my reply isn't seen as a counter rant. I'm not trying to start a flame/platform war, just offer a different perspective. I'm not your worst enemy

No worries.

Yes, CBM BASIC 2.0 isn't the end-all be-all language and experience; similarly the X16 won't revolutionize the home computer industry. But I feel it will be fun!

I wholeheartedly agree.

There are several interesting retro projects being realised right now, but the problem is availability. I've had my eye on the Color Maximite 2 for a while, but it's sold out everywhere. The Mega65 and the F256K are hard to get hold of as well (and ridiculously expensive, I might add). I hope it doesn't take too long for the X16 hardware to become generally available.

My nostalgia comes from the challenge of learning on a VIC-20 in the 80s when home computers first came out. It was a system to explore and attempt to master.

I started out with a Z80-based system (the EACA Colour Genie) and was totally hooked. Later on I got a C64, admittedly mostly for the games, but that's when I started playing around with 6502 assembly code.

I knew that what I did then and will do in the future with the X16 isn't going to change the world. But it will provide me with enjoyment. That's perhaps the nostalgia I'm looking for the X16 to provide.

I started working on an X16 port of a C64 game, and thought "hey, the CPU is running quite a bit faster than it did on the C64, so why not give BASIC a try?" After all, somebody managed to write a Boulder Dash clone in BASIC. What could possibly go wrong? (Ahem.)

Unfortunately, I guess I just wasn't prepared for the culture shock of going back to CBM BASIC after all these years: Two-letter variables, no local variables, no labels, no structured loops, no way to move the DATA pointer to a specific line, no sound support, extremely limited graphics support, no way to efficiently store binary data within the code... and so on.

I suddenly remembered what an absolute chore it had been to write a small database application on the C64 to organize my files, and how the program listing ended up being at least 50% comments in order to avoid the infamous "cold spaghetti" experience when revisiting the code a few months later.

But don't get me wrong: I really like the X16, and I also like the concept of being dumped directly into a BASIC interpreter at power-up. My issue is solely with this specific BASIC dialect, which admittedly I don't even have to use.

As things stand, I'll probably end up using a PC for development. Now, if someone were to create a macro assembler with an IDE that would fit into the ROM banks of the X16, and perhaps use the higher RAM banks for source code storage...

[BruceRMcF]

But don't get me wrong: I really like the X16, and I also like the concept of being dumped directly into a BASIC interpreter at power-up. My issue is solely with this specific BASIC dialect, which admittedly I don't even have to use. ...

That is one of the big upgrades ... with AUTOEXEC.X16, you are perfectly free to have your only CBM V2.0 Basic program be the one that loads up an interpreter that you prefer when you power up. So someone who wants a more full features Basic with all of the bells and whistles, along with the interpreter code size that implies, could have a Basic interpreter that is 64KB in size that lives in 8 HighRAM segments ... if someone develops it and that's what floats your boat.