12358cc2aa86
tech



Hello Jean - 

CA>> I do dabble a bit with programming. I rewrote quite a bit
CA>> of the OLR I am using now to make it do what I needed to
CA>> do in ways I wanted it done (like word wrap etc.). 

JP> The C= programs were, for me, easy to modify. In BASIC. 

Yes, the C64 BASIC was widely used for many things. 

JP> I once tried the ML aspect of it but could not remember all
JP> the commands and refering to the manual all the time was
JP> time taking, 

Everyone who does ASM has to refer to the manual once in
awhile. The thing is to only write code you will use frequently
so as to recover the time it takes to get it working. :-) 

JP> I reverted to BASIC. That seemed logical to me. 

It is logical. Sad thing is Microsoft did a poor job marketing
their full sized BASIC compiler. I'm not referring to
QuickBASIC here I mean the REAL BASIC compiler. It produced
code that executed faster than Microsoft's own 'C' compiler
could produce. A huge number of people, like yourself, with
experience at using BASIC could have written a great deal of
useable code but word of mouth was BASIC wasn't good enough. 

At Simtelnet there is ASIC which is a BASIC compiler that
produces COM files that are comparable in size to 'C' code.
Very small executables and very fast. You might have a use for
something like that one day. I use it from time to time to
create 'filters' to manipulate text files.

>
>        ,                                        ,
>      o/      Charles.Angelich  - DOS Ghost       \o       ,
>       __o/
>     / >  www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/faf/  < \   __\__
 

--- * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
... Xmas Music! www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/faf/snowsc.htm