Did anyone else start programming with BASIC on the TI-99/4A?
Aaron Anodide
learning how to program even today, it would be useful because you would be
free of the reams of layers that are beneath modern programming languages...
Remember PEEK and POKE? :)
Regards,
Aaron
Auric__
I started on a TRS-80.
--
As a rule, I don't ally myself with egotistical madmen.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
<not.m...@email.address> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:06:01 GMT, Aaron Anodide wrote:
>
>> That was my first computer. I had a cool BASIC book too. I think that
>> for learning how to program even today, it would be useful because you
>> would be free of the reams of layers that are beneath modern programming
>> languages...
>>
>> Remember PEEK and POKE? :)
>
>I started on a TRS-80.
I started Basic on a minicomputer.
I started on a 1401. No, wait, that was the second computer. First
was a Litton Monrobot-?? something.
--
ArarghMail912 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.
RobertVA
I remember PEEK and POKE, which would be dangerous commands in a GUI
environment. With the assortment of different graphic resolutions and
the OS's ability to load your BASIC code in different RAM locations a
PEEK or POKE address would be too unpredictable. Would be the IT
equivalent to crossing a BUSY freeway on foot.
I'll give Microsoft credit for easy graphical access to common user
interface elements like pop-ups, text boxes, command buttons and menus
in its Visual BASIC. In contrast Visual C++ user interface programming
(at least in v6) involves precise editing of multiple text files.
Auric__
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:11:28 GMT, "Auric__"
> <not.m...@email.address> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:06:01 GMT, Aaron Anodide wrote:
>>
>>> That was my first computer. I had a cool BASIC book too. I think that
>>> for learning how to program even today, it would be useful because you
>>> would be free of the reams of layers that are beneath modern programming
>>> languages...
>>>
>>> Remember PEEK and POKE? :)
>>
>>I started on a TRS-80.
> I started Basic on a minicomputer.
> I started on a 1401. No, wait, that was the second computer. First
> was a Litton Monrobot-?? something.
Only mini I ever used was a radar console. Did use a few modern (that is,
modern in the 1990's) mainframes.
--
If I can't laugh at myself I'm really lost.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
<not.m...@email.address> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:38:18 GMT, "that guy with the email address" wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:11:28 GMT, "Auric__"
>> <not.m...@email.address> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:06:01 GMT, Aaron Anodide wrote:
>>>
>>>> That was my first computer. I had a cool BASIC book too. I think that
>>>> for learning how to program even today, it would be useful because you
>>>> would be free of the reams of layers that are beneath modern programming
>>>> languages...
>>>>
>>>> Remember PEEK and POKE? :)
>>>
>>>I started on a TRS-80.
>> I started Basic on a minicomputer.
>> I started on a 1401. No, wait, that was the second computer. First
>> was a Litton Monrobot-?? something.
>
>Only mini I ever used was a radar console. Did use a few modern (that is,
>modern in the 1990's) mainframes.
Did that back in the first half of the 70s. Mainframes, that is.
SYS/360 & SYS370s.
I still have 6 or so of the minis that I used to work on, although I
doubt that any still work. Well, one probably would, but the rest. .
Been on PCs since the mid 80s.
Tom Lake
> I still have 6 or so of the minis that I used to work on, although I
> doubt that any still work. Well, one probably would, but the rest. .
You wouldn't happen to have a Wang 3300 (not 2200) working or not
you'd be willing to sell, would you?
Tom Lake
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
wrote:
Nope, sorry. Just a bunch of DG clones.
Aaron Anodide
"Auric__" <not.m...@email.address> wrote in message
news:Xns9CD77BC46BDF9au...@69.16.185.250...
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:06:01 GMT, Aaron Anodide wrote:
>
>> That was my first computer. I had a cool BASIC book too. I think that
>> for learning how to program even today, it would be useful because you
>> would be free of the reams of layers that are beneath modern programming
>> languages...
>>
>> Remember PEEK and POKE? :)
>
> I started on a TRS-80.
Cool, that was out at the same time I remember at least one of my friends
had one and they were out on display at Radio Shack right?
Was the "80" related to being able to display 80 columns of text as opposed
to 40? I can't think of what else it would have meant.
Best,
Aaron
Aaron Anodide
<ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com> wrote in message
news:h60jh5dms8phrc2ut...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:11:28 GMT, "Auric__"
> <not.m...@email.address> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:06:01 GMT, Aaron Anodide wrote:
>>
>>> That was my first computer. I had a cool BASIC book too. I think that
>>> for learning how to program even today, it would be useful because you
>>> would be free of the reams of layers that are beneath modern programming
>>> languages...
>>>
>>> Remember PEEK and POKE? :)
>>
>>I started on a TRS-80.
> I started Basic on a minicomputer.
> I started on a 1401. No, wait, that was the second computer. First
> was a Litton Monrobot-?? something.
Sounds like you started a few years before me (I'm not trying to call you
old, honest)... I am interested to know what I would have been doing if I
had gotten into computers a few years earlier. Was it less accessible?
I've read the stories about the Apple being build in its inventor's garage -
but I've often wondered if Woz was doing something totally new or if there
were lots of people out there assembling computers...
If that first Apple has BASIC, that means the interpreter code was done in
hand written machine language right? I'm 99% sure that's not a question,
but is that the level one needed to be at to gain entry into the field
before the advent of the affordable home computer?
Regards,
Aaron
Aaron Anodide
"Tom Lake" <toml_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:79071845-6470-4343...@microsoft.com...
Is it possible someone in the inter-world may have created an emulator for
this? Apologies if my ignorance is shining here - I'm just getting
interested in computers that predate my first one...
Thanks,
Aaron
>
> Tom Lake
Aaron Anodide
"RobertVA" <robert_c7...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:u4xFWoTd...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Aaron Anodide wrote:
>> That was my first computer. I had a cool BASIC book too. I think that
>> for learning how to program even today, it would be useful because you
>> would be free of the reams of layers that are beneath modern programming
>> languages...
>>
>> Remember PEEK and POKE? :)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Aaron
>
> I remember PEEK and POKE, which would be dangerous commands in a GUI
> environment. With the assortment of different graphic resolutions and the
> OS's ability to load your BASIC code in different RAM locations a PEEK or
> POKE address would be too unpredictable. Would be the IT equivalent to
> crossing a BUSY freeway on foot.
Yep, you sparked my memory with that... on the Apple II, I remember I had a
binary program that actually did text to speech using just the
(oscillators?) sound capability on the machine - I would load it into memory
with a command that I don't recall - maybe LOAD - and then use POKE to
insert the text I wanted to be spoken - finally CALL to make it go.
I suppose it was less dangerous in that time because aside from IRQ's, the
system only had one thread of execution, right?
It's all coming back to me now :)
Is there an assembly language group out there for the 6502/65C02 processor?
That was a great experience when I was just starting out programming to
trudge myself through the pain of "Assembly Lines" a book I wish I held
onto. As I recall it was a compilation of magazine articles... I eventually
got an understanding of it though and I'm curious to know how different it
is on modern processors. I'd imagine there is at least some common ground.
Regards,
Aaron
Tom Lake
> had one and they were out on display at Radio Shack right?
>
> Was the "80" related to being able to display 80 columns of text as
> opposed to 40? I can't think of what else it would have meant.
The TRS-80 displayed 16 lines of 64 characters per line. That made for an
even
1K video RAM. The 80 was from the fact that it used a Z-80 microprocessor.
Tom Lake
Tom Lake
"Aaron Anodide" <aa...@netschool101.com> wrote in message
news:#dDMZKpd...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Yes, there's a very good emulator for the 3300 but nothing can really
replace
the actual hardware. The 3300 is the first computer I ever programmed that
I
actually saw! I had been programming for years on machines that were miles
from where I punched my cards. I'd write the program on a coding form,
go to a keypunch machine, type the program on a keyboard which punched
holes in cards, one program line per card. The deck of cards was then taken
to the computer facility when the operators did their magic. In two or
three
days, a 132-column listing and the original deck would be delivered to me.
If all went well, the answers would be on the paper. If there was an error
(more often than not) I'd have to type up corrected cards, resubmit the deck
and wait another two or three days for the results. For a very complicated
program, it might take two or three cycles to get the output to look exactly
the way I wanted. Kids today (anyone under 40) are spoiled! 8^)
Tom Lake
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
<aa...@netschool101.com> wrote:
>
>
><ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com> wrote in message
>news:h60jh5dms8phrc2ut...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:11:28 GMT, "Auric__"
>> <not.m...@email.address> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:06:01 GMT, Aaron Anodide wrote:
>>>
>>>> That was my first computer. I had a cool BASIC book too. I think that
>>>> for learning how to program even today, it would be useful because you
>>>> would be free of the reams of layers that are beneath modern programming
>>>> languages...
>>>>
>>>> Remember PEEK and POKE? :)
>>>
>>>I started on a TRS-80.
>> I started Basic on a minicomputer.
>> I started on a 1401. No, wait, that was the second computer. First
>> was a Litton Monrobot-?? something.
>
>Sounds like you started a few years before me (I'm not trying to call you
>old, honest)... I am interested to know what I would have been doing if I
Why not? I AM old. Just turned 61. The Monrobot was in the mid 60s.
>had gotten into computers a few years earlier. Was it less accessible?
>I've read the stories about the Apple being build in its inventor's garage -
>but I've often wondered if Woz was doing something totally new or if there
>were lots of people out there assembling computers...
>
>If that first Apple has BASIC, that means the interpreter code was done in
>hand written machine language right? I'm 99% sure that's not a question,
>but is that the level one needed to be at to gain entry into the field
>before the advent of the affordable home computer?
No, FORTRAN was around since the 50s. I am not sure when COBOL got
started, but the 1401 had it in the late 60s. Slow on a 1401!
And the Monrobot was programmed in some interruptive language, and
IIRC, had a FORTRAN compiler, too.
RobertVA
The single thread environment had a lot to do with the relative safety
of direct memory commands like PEEK and POKE in the early home computers
like the Apple ][, TRS-80, and Commodore PET (in addition to VIC -20 and
C-64). There was no need to be concerned about other threads using the
computer's resources. The memory block where the program was loaded was
more predictable as well.
I haven't looked too closely at assembly language in the late model CPUs
but I gather it's much like the 65xx series except that there are
provisions for the larger address space. There was a situation where an
effort to design a shorthand addressing scheme, intended to reduce the
size of the code space, had the unintended consequence of further
extending the processor's memory addressing range. I suspect there are
some commands to access the built in math coprocessors as well.
I gather most developers are using the more capable Object Oriented
Languages like C++ and C# now. Those provide high level commands
resembling those available in BASIC combined with powerful capabilities
to create and use programmer developed classes/objects that combine the
values of variables with the code to check for invalid values, developer
defined operators (corresponding to operators like the + and - for
numbers) and display/graphic functions like drawing a command button on
the screen.
peace101
root of negative 1 is?> hehe
Auric__
> while everyone is asking weird questions, does anyone know what the square
> root of negative 1 is?> hehe
That's easy: i. Ask a hard one.
--
You now belong to the ages,
and the ages don't wash their hands after they pee.
Tom Lake
"Auric__" <not.m...@email.address> wrote in message
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:21:01 GMT, =?Utf-8?B?cGVhY2UxMDE=?= wrote:
>
>> while everyone is asking weird questions, does anyone know what the square
>> root of negative 1 is?> hehe
>
> That's easy: i. Ask a hard one.
Due to lawsuIts by Apple, all uses of lowercase letter I are forbIdden
wIthout a lIcense from Apple. Uppercase usage is still permItted,
however. 8^)
Tom Lake
leo
I am a Chinese high school students, this is my first time to use msn, my
English is not very good, but I very much hope that you and friends, so you
can help me to improve their English performance, can I?
Care
Luo Ginch
"Aaron Anodide" <aa...@netschool101.com>
??????:eP5vjQQd...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Marco
We are presenting the new messenger.
He will be in the commissioning by the friends that we indicate to use the
system.
Access the system by clicking the link below and register free.
You get something for using orkut?
You get something for using skype?
You gain something by using twiter?
You get somenthing for using facebook?
Enjoy this is your time!!
Sign up and join for free.
http://www.sqipcom.com/?ref=webempreendedor
http://stakeholder.sqipcom.com/user/webempreendedor
"peace101" <peac...@discussions.microsoft.com> escreveu na notícia da
mensagem:674DAC3F-E0DD-43B3...@microsoft.com...