BASIC Standard
Tom Lake
compiler or just interested in what the international standard looks like,
you can download it here:
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-WITHDRAWN/ECMA-116,
1st edition, June 01986.pdf
Tom Lake
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
wrote:
68 meg! Oh, my poor dialup! :-)
Is it any different than the ANSI Basic Standard that I actually spent
money some years ago?
--
ArarghMail001 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.
Tom Lake
<ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com> wrote in message
news:5khsj59f2uv65p9c0...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 12:13:56 -0500, "Tom Lake" <tl...@twcny.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>For anyone wanting to write a standard-conforming BASIC interpreter or
>>compiler or just interested in what the international standard looks like,
>>you can download it here:
>>
>>http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-WITHDRAWN/ECMA-116,
>>1st edition, June 01986.pdf
>>
> 68 meg! Oh, my poor dialup! :-)
>
> Is it any different than the ANSI Basic Standard that I actually spent
> money some years ago?
>
What is this 'dialup' of which you speak? 8^)
No, there's no difference other than the name.
Europe gives it out free whereas the USA charges
for it.
Tom Lake
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
wrote:
>
><ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com> wrote in message
>news:5khsj59f2uv65p9c0...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 12:13:56 -0500, "Tom Lake" <tl...@twcny.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>For anyone wanting to write a standard-conforming BASIC interpreter or
>>>compiler or just interested in what the international standard looks like,
>>>you can download it here:
>>>
>>>http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-WITHDRAWN/ECMA-116,
>>>1st edition, June 01986.pdf
>>>
>> 68 meg! Oh, my poor dialup! :-)
>>
>> Is it any different than the ANSI Basic Standard that I actually spent
>> money some years ago?
>>
>
>What is this 'dialup' of which you speak? 8^)
ISDN - which I got back in the 90s before lots of web designers became
enamored with the idea that everybody needed a T3 in order to view
their web pages in any kind of reasonable timeframe. :-)
Of course, I could rephrase the preceeding paragraph, but all the heat
might damage my router. :-)
>No, there's no difference other than the name.
>Europe gives it out free whereas the USA charges
>for it.
Hmmm, then why is it 3 1/2 times larger than what I got? Or maybe I
got the subset instead of the full version.
Tom Lake
>>No, there's no difference other than the name.
>>Europe gives it out free whereas the USA charges
>>for it.
> Hmmm, then why is it 3 1/2 times larger than what I got? Or maybe I
> got the subset instead of the full version.
Maybe the one you have is text. The European one is scanned images
which take more space.
Tom L
Derek
> For anyone wanting to write a standard-conforming BASIC interpreter or
> compiler or just interested in what the international standard looks like,
> you can download it here:
>
> 1st edition, June 01986.pdf
>
> Tom Lake
Of course that's Full BASIC. However that interesting folder also
contains Minimal BASIC as ECMA-55. Al good stuff. Thanks, Tom!
Cheers
Derek
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
wrote:
>>>No, there's no difference other than the name.
No, scanned images, 20.2 meg worth. The OCRed text came to about
600k, and it was a really, really bad OCR job. And after three years
of part time work, it still isn't cleaned up. But, it is better. :-)
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
wrote:
Just checked, the one I have says "Programming Languages -
Full BASIC". Maybe the ECMA version was scanned at a better
resolution.
Fred McKenzie
"Tom Lake" <tl...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> you can download it here:
I found the one-page Scope at:
<http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-WITHDRAWN/E
CMA-116%20SCOPE.pdf>
and the 68 MB document at:
<http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-WITHDRAWN/E
CMA-116,%201st%20edition,%20June%201986.pdf>
I suspect that "WITHDRAWN" really means "retired"!
Fred
Stefan Pendl
There is a list available, if you go to http://www.ecma-international.org/ and select the "Standards" tab.
Using the list with a brief description is much easier to navigate and search.
---
Stefan Pendl
Windows Vista SP2
AMD Turion X2 RM-70 2 GHz
4 GB RAM
Rapunzel
ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
>On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 21:09:39 -0500, "Tom Lake" <tl...@twcny.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>>No, there's no difference other than the name.
>>>>Europe gives it out free whereas the USA charges
>>>>for it.
>>> Hmmm, then why is it 3 1/2 times larger than what I got? Or maybe I
>>> got the subset instead of the full version.
>>
>>Maybe the one you have is text. The European one is scanned images
>>which take more space.
>No, scanned images, 20.2 meg worth. The OCRed text came to about
>600k, and it was a really, really bad OCR job. And after three years
>of part time work, it still isn't cleaned up. But, it is better. :-)
Seems the PDFs on ECMA's page are created from uncompressed TIFF
images, while your's might be a better compressed version...
R
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
wrote:
Well, the image extracter I used on -55 & -116 extracted JPG files,
and on the ANSI version I got BMP files.
Document count type extracted size
ECMA-55 41 JPG 14.8 meg
ECMA-116 207 JPG 67.4 meg
ANSI 9513 BMP 295 meg
I presume that the images in the ANSI doc are actually something else
and the extractor program saved them as BMP, because the ANSI doc is
only 20 meg or so.
The JPGs in the ECMA docs seem pretty clear, so if I wanted to bother
to OCR them, I could probably convert them and do so.