World: r3wp

I choosed that one, because I once owned a BBC Micro. I have no idea, 
how far that is from QBasic. But I guess Basic is Basic. They probably 
differ in stuff like graphics and sound.

To Gress's post:

1) Yes, it's interesting to find out, how much we get for free using 
e.g. blocks in REBOL to simulate lists in other languages. Maybe 
using hash! will benefit in some situations!?

2) Using rebcode is also a way to write lower level code. But it 
should also be possible to define REBOL functions, that work like 
(or simulate) the lower level commands in other languages. 

3) Yes, it would be interesting to find out, how languages differ 
in their cores.

LOL (I can't spell your name, sorry!)
*To Gregg's post*

Read before you post! Read before you post! Read before you post!

(Does that help? ;-) Well, we sometimes get a laugh, when people 
don't do that.)

Could this group we [web-public]?

It's an interesting discussion of techiqyes that deserve a wider 
appreciation.

Web public. Yes
Gress = Gregg. NP :-)


QBASIC - Ahhh, now we get to have some fun. QBASIC is not your old 
fashioned, line-numbered BASIC. I think it would be cool to do both, 
but the Q(Quick)BASIC language is much better for writing programs 
that actually do something. I've been tempted to do something like 
that myself. To actually run exisiting QB code, screen access would 
pretty much be a must-have feature. Nothing like those old character 
mode interfaces you know.

Gregg, yes, you se my point....Sunanda, agreed.

If you want basic, why not take one and use r3-dll? :)

I also haven't got any problem with this group going web-public. 
I guess, it's just to change it.

Web public. Yes

A z-machine interpreter could be fun - plenty of infocom games to 
play. ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-machine

Thanks......I've changed the designation to [web-public]:

http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/aga-display-posts.r?post=r3wp248x150

http://maschenwerk.de/foerthchen/


This guy has written a forth in javascript ... guess it's doable 
in Rebol

The start of a BBC BASIC interpreter using string parsing: http://www.fys.ku.dk/~niclasen/rebol/bbcbasic.r

How do we best get this rolling? I'm interested in making some language 
interpreters in REBOL, because I see future potential. Reichart and 
Gregg talked about QBASIC, which I don't know. Where are the specifications 
for that language? BASIC is a start, and along the line, I would 
like to dig into other languages as well. Is it best keeping it all 
public, or should we make new groups for teams interested in this?

Very nice...  As for the other questions...can't say...but well done 
sir.  And a nice reading code space to boot.

Nice John! I'm not sure how best to get rolling. I'm totally buried 
at the moment, but I can provide web space for the project if we 
need that. I also a number of grammars and things here, if we need 
references.

Oddly, I don't seem to have a QBASIC grammar. :-\

I started on a VB grammar once, which is similar, and I still have 
most of my manuals here somewhere. :-)

Not sure if the various sites for lex/yacc tools and such might have 
one/

Gregg, first I'm making a simple 'engine' or 'template' for BASIC. 
Today I implemented expressions, some simple string handling and 
a little more. I'll make conditions (IF) and loops (FOR), then that 
should be a good start to build on.

Uploaded new version of BBC BASIC intepreter. Added expressions and 
conditions. Added IF and INPUT. Example:

>> do http://www.fys.ku.dk/~niclasen/rebol/bbcbasic.r
connecting to: www.fys.ku.dk
Script: "BBC BASIC" (18-Jul-2007)
BASIC v. 0.0.2 

>auto
   10 input "Name",name$

   20 if name$="Carl" then print "Hi " name$ else print "Hello " name$
   30 0
>run
Name?John
Hello John

So far this is implemented:

Keywords: AUTO, DELETE, LIST, NEW, OLD, GOTO, RUN, END, IF, INPUT, 
LET, PRINT, REM, STOP
Functions: COS, SIN
Expressions can beside unary +, - use: +, -, *, /, ^, (, )
Conditions can use: or, eor, and, =, <>, <=, >=, <, >

It's possible to add strings together and strings can also be tested 
in conditions.

3 datatypes is implemented. Examples:
a$ is a string
a% is an integer
a is a real.

*are implemented*

Use a zero (0) to leave AUTO. Pressing <Esc> will end the BASIC intepreter.

New version 0.1.0 of BBC BASIC. Added FOR ... NEXT loop. Example:

>> do http://www.fys.ku.dk/~niclasen/rebol/bbcbasic.r
connecting to: www.fys.ku.dk
Script: "BBC BASIC" (19-Jul-2007)
BASIC v. 0.1.0 

>auto
   10 for a=10 to pi step -2.3
   20 for n%=1 to 3 step 2
   30 print a n%
   40 next
   50 next
   60 0
>run
                  10                   1
                  10                   3
                 7.7                   1
                 7.7                   3
                 5.4                   1
                 5.4                   3

Cute.

A modern BASIC should maybe be able to recognize both lower an UPPER 
case, like in my examples. The original BBC BASIC distinguish between 
upper and lower case. I should change my interpreter to work this 
way, so already written programs will work.

Or maybe the problem is only with variables!? Hmm

http://www.programatium.com/en/programming4/qbasic.htm
http://www.qbasic.com/wbb/filebase_entry.php?entryid=50&

New version 0.1.1 of BBC BASIC. Added many keywords, mostly functions. 
To run:
>> do http://www.fys.ku.dk/~niclasen/rebol/bbcbasic.r

List of keywords: http://www.fys.ku.dk/~niclasen/rebol/bbcbasic.html

Version 0.2.0 of BBC BASIC uploaded. Added DATA, READ and RESTORE. 
Added GOSUB and RETURN. Added hex notation, made some changes and 
fixed bugs.

This is meant as an implementation of BBC BASIC originally found 
on the BBC Micro from british Acorn. It's not an emulator of that 
computer. For emulation of the BBC Micro, I recommend BeebEm.

One thing is to implement old languages, it could also be interesting 
to make a modern BASIC using block parsing in REBOL. That way, it 
would be possible to easily implement many of the datatypes found 
in REBOL. Also imagine to be able to have BASIC (or other language) 
code in the middle of a REBOL script, doing something like:
... (some REBOL code) ...
BASIC [
... (some BASIC code) ...
]
... (more REBOL code) ...

The BBC BASIC interpreter is now more than 800 lines of REBOL source 
(or 20278 bytes). It's 4568 bytes compressed.

In the early 80'ies, before the era of PCs, the Amiga, Mac and Linux, 
there were a whole range of home computers more or less expensive 
(the BBC Micro were in the high price range back then). They all 
came with some version of the BASIC language. It was also possible 
to program in assembler (the BBC had a 6502 CPU). Imagine a new homecomputer 
with REBOL and rebcode. And many other languages supported as REBOL 
dialects. It should just have a keyboard, network, some RAM and maybe 
a memory stick instead of a harddisk. And connection to a monitor. 
That shouldn't be too costly to produce. Would it sell if the price 
was right?

Oh, and it should have a low-energy CPU to run the scripts, something 
as the G3, I think IBM made to only use 1-2 Watt. Then it could be 
sold all over the World.

geomol, I think you'd have to price it like a midsized calculator

I think also we need a new age of exploratory computing (meaning, 
people exploring other than porn sites and youtube), and it requires 
its own hardware.

the problem is that people expect to do everything on a PC, whereas 
in the 80's, people expected to do everything on a C64.

Geomol - there is one strong and modern Basic implementation - Free 
Basic?

Pekr, is it strong enough? As datatypes, it support different kinds 
of integers, floating-point and strings. BASIC as a REBOL dialect 
would be able to have much more, wouldn't it?

Wow John! I haven't even had a chance to look at it since the original 
release and you're already on v2, well, 0.2, but still. :-) And, 
yes, I think it would be very cool to have a BASIC that supports 
REBOL's datatypes. Part of my, perhaps not so hidden, agenda for 
these things--in addition to being great for teaching language design 
and construction--is to show how REBOL can work *inside* the idioms 
other languages use.

:-) I have a feeling, that dialects is a good way to go, because 
so many problems become much easier to solve.

Geomol, the problem with such a computer is that it would only appeal 
to geeks, and geeks already have a pc anyway. for developing countries, 
there's the OLPC eventually.

i think, time would better be invested in an OS (both for geeks, 
and non-geeks). then you can make cheap computers for the OS to run, 
once it has been recognized, so parents could buy a $100 computer 
to childs (one each) instead of one big $1000 pc for the family.

(http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070720/od_nm/nigeria_pornography_dc;_ylt=A0WTUfF176FG8XwBExgZ.3QA)

Somthing that translates to all  languages, and ages...