Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [cosmacelf] Oak Ridge Basic

Expand Messages
  • Lee Hart
    ... I don t know anything about this BASIC. Could you perhaps describe its features and capabilities as compared to Tom Pittman s Tiny BASIC? If there are
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 21, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      John Stewart wrote:
      > Years ago Oak Ridge Basic was distributed... I have a copy with my
      > keyboard input/6847 output routines, and interrupt service routine...
      > Is this stuff of any use to anyone?

      I don't know anything about this BASIC. Could you perhaps describe its
      features and capabilities as compared to Tom Pittman's Tiny BASIC? If
      there are useful differences, I for one would be interested in seeing
      it.
      --
      Lee A. Hart Ring the bells that still can ring
      814 8th Ave. N. Forget your perfect offering
      Sartell, MN 56377 USA There is a crack in everything
      leeahart_at_earthlink.net That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
    • sncf141r
      Lee; It has been many years since I did anything with this basic, but if I remember some things, it was slightly faster, and was EPROMable. Also, one could
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 23, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Lee;

        It has been many years since I did anything with this basic, but if I
        remember some things, it was slightly faster, and was EPROMable.

        Also, one could write your own input and output routines, which I did.

        I think that's it... it would be interesting to run it on an emulator,
        to see if it even runs properly.

        JohnS.


        > I don't know anything about this BASIC. Could you perhaps describe
        its
        > features and capabilities as compared to Tom Pittman's Tiny BASIC?
        If
        > there are useful differences, I for one would be interested in
        seeing
        > it.
      • Lee Hart
        ... Tom Pittman s Tiny BASIC was ROMable and easy to use with your own I/O routines. It was indeed slow. He optimized it for minimum memory, which meant
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 23, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          sncf141r wrote:
          > It has been many years since I did anything with this basic, but if I
          > remember some things, it was slightly faster, and was EPROMable.
          > Also, one could write your own input and output routines, which I did.

          Tom Pittman's Tiny BASIC was ROMable and easy to use with your own I/O
          routines. It was indeed slow. He optimized it for minimum memory, which
          meant minimum speed.

          > I think that's it... it would be interesting to run it on an emulator,
          > to see if it even runs properly.

          As it turns out, I am just finishing up an 1802 emulator in QuickBASIC.
          Slow, but it works. I'm still in the testing stages to see if I've got
          all the opcodes right. If any one would like to help test it, I can
          email you the program.
          --
          Lee A. Hart Ring the bells that still can ring
          814 8th Ave. N. Forget your perfect offering
          Sartell, MN 56377 USA There is a crack in everything
          leeahart_at_earthlink.net That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.