[Coco] Re: Let me introduce myself (GW/CoCo BASIC similarities)
farna at att.net
farna at att.net
Wed Feb 1 17:39:59 EST 2006
I have one big programming accomplishment: I wrote a genealogy database program for the CoCo3 way back when. It was great -- I threw every little trick and tweak I could find in there, including POKEing to "double speed" then automatically dropping back for disk I/O and back up again when done. I masked the file names so that they looked like ML files (don't ask me how to do that now!), but a knowledgeable CoCo programmer could easily get around that. But it ran so fast that most people assumed it WAS machine language.
So what has this got to do with GW-BASIC? What I started to do was port a PD GW-BASIC program over to the CoCo3. I ended up re-writing 85-90% of the code due to differences in the BASICs and a few limitations of the CoCo. The commands are similar, and for really simple programs you can easily port them, but something larger and useful is totally different. All disk I/O had to be re-written -- no ROM calls on the CoCo, disk commands are integrated. Limits on string names, data formats, and the most troublesome -- screen locations. All had to be re-written. Enough that I credited the original program as a guide only (something like "based on xxxx for GW-BASIC"). In the end it was a totally different program that worked in a similar fashion as the GW-BASIC one.
I will freely admit that I couldn't have done it with disecting the original and totally re-writing it, but it took the better part of a year to do (spare time project), and I spent many full days at it. I too saw the similarities and figured "gee, it should be easy to port a GW-BASIC program to the CoCo, especially the CoCo3" (fewer memory limitations), but it was far from it! I also had the help of a book on porting between different BASICS, which had CoCo2 BASIC included. I had to figure out some of the CoCo3 specific commands. Commodore 64, Apple II, and TRS-80 BASICs were also included, and I think at least one other (I believe there were six BASICs total). Only GW, TRS-80, and CoCo bore many similarities. I'm pretty sure I'd have given up if I'd tried on a Commodore 64 or Apple II. I considered it at several points with the CC3!!
Publisher, "American Independent
For all AMC enthusiasts
(free download available!)
-------------- Original message ----------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:16:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Russell Flowers <coffeecircle at yahoo.com>
Subject: [Coco] Re: [Color Computer] Re: Let me introduce myself
--- James the Animal Tamer <emucompboy at yahoo.com>
> --- In ColorComputer at yahoogroups.com, Diego Barizo
> <diegoba at ...> wrote:
> > Remember that CoCo Basic is 95% compatible with
> > That means that with just a little rework his
> programs will run and
> > compile on a PC,
> > Can a Commodore do that ???? ;-) :-P
> In a fair comparison, the Commodore should do just
> as well as the
> CoCo. Commodore BASIC is Microsoft version 2 BASIC
> -- the only
> differences I can think of at the moment is that the
> INKEY$ keyword got
> replaced with something else, and EXEC got replaced
> with SYS.
I don't know... IIRC, most C64 BASIC listings were
full of "special characters" that you got through
various key combinations. Remember all those graphics
characters on the sides of the keys?
More information about the Coco