Cannot download Z88 docs

[dilwyn]

@Dilwyn - I just opened the BBC BASIC one and it's only 2 pages long - I'll try on my Windows laptop tomorrow, see if I can get it downloaded that way.

Ah, misleading link. The real download is behind a one word link in that 2 page text. Here's the full 336 page one (many times the size of course).

[Derek_Stewart]

@Dilwyn - I just opened the BBC BASIC one and it's only 2 pages long - I'll try on my Windows laptop tomorrow, see if I can get it downloaded that way.

Ah, misleading link. The real download is behind a one word link in that 2 page text. Here's the full 336 page one (many times the size of course).

Pity it had nor been SuperBaisi, as I find BBC Basic a little limiting after QL Basic.

But it has an inline assembler.

[dilwyn]

Pity it had nor been SuperBaisi, as I find BBC Basic a little limiting after QL Basic.

But it has an inline assembler.

BBC BASIC was also a structured BASIC, but was originally limited by being in a 32K ROM. Later versions of BBC BASIC ran on larger memory machines, so had some additional BASIC commands and structures. And of course it was used on Clive's Z88.

I used BBC micros a lot in the 80s, they were used at work and I wrote some office software for it at the time, long since gone of course.

As Derek says, the inline assembler was really useful.

[tofro]

Pity it had nor been SuperBaisi, as I find BBC Basic a little limiting after QL Basic.

But it has an inline assembler.

BBC BASIC was also a structured BASIC, but was originally limited by being in a 32K ROM. Later versions of BBC BASIC ran on larger memory machines, so had some additional BASIC commands and structures. And of course it was used on Clive's Z88.

I used BBC micros a lot in the 80s, they were used at work and I wrote some office software for it at the time, long since gone of course.

As Derek says, the inline assembler was really useful.

I only know BBC Basic from the Z88 and later, RISCOs.

I always found it to be a very, very powerful language and a fast one.

But its user-friendliness left quite a bit to be desired over S*BASIC: I find BBC Basic programs, as soon as they get a bit more elaborate, convoluted and extremely hard to read. The fact that it only accepts upper-key keywords is, well, simply annoying. Structures and dynamic memory with pointers are a nice addition to a BASIC dialect, but programs that use them tend to be convoluted and nearly unreadable using a bunch of brackets, ampersands and random characters strewn in in a cryptic way that always seem to have a specific meaning you can't quite remember (The designers seem to have discussed what specific key hasn't been used yet and threw it in with some sort of magic meaning...). Working with an elaborate BBC Basic program feels much like programming in Assembly. Later BBC BASIC programs definitely lost the "B" in the name....

S*Basic is much more user-friendly and it is much clearer to express yourself, thus a lot easier to read.

[dilwyn]

Agreed, tofro. While I do have fond memories of the language from back in the day, like you say, I find S*BASIC a lot easier in many ways.

[pjw]

<>
S*Basic is much more user-friendly and it is much clearer to express yourself, thus a lot easier to read.

I once heard a French philosopher in all seriousness say something to the effect of "The beauty of the French language is that it exactly expresses what you think." (Wow!)
Back on topic: I guess a lot of it depends on what youre used to..

[pjw]

<>
As Derek says, the inline assembler was really useful.

Yes, it might be useful to have a steak knife with a spoon at the other end, but I prefer them as separate utensils! To my mind an inline assembler wouldnt make much sense in S*BASIC as it is so easy to add bespoke m/c toolkits, developed and assembled with the proper tools elsewhere. In extremis, one can always POKE inline code in an S*BASIC program and CALL it.

[dilwyn]

<>
As Derek says, the inline assembler was really useful.

Yes, it might be useful to have a steak knife with a spoon at the other end, but I prefer them as separate utensils! To my mind an inline assembler wouldnt make much sense in S*BASIC as it is so easy to add bespoke m/c toolkits, developed and assembled with the proper tools elsewhere. In extremis, one can always POKE inline code in an S*BASIC program and CALL it.

It sort of made sense in the realms of the BBC micro, where you could incorporate short bits of 6502 assembler code in the BASIC program. But in the QL context I totally agree with you.

[tofro]

<>
As Derek says, the inline assembler was really useful.

Yes, it might be useful to have a steak knife with a spoon at the other end, but I prefer them as separate utensils! To my mind an inline assembler wouldnt make much sense in S*BASIC as it is so easy to add bespoke m/c toolkits, developed and assembled with the proper tools elsewhere. In extremis, one can always POKE inline code in an S*BASIC program and CALL it.

Agreed.

Inline assembly has an advantage and a disadvantage:

A: The source code is included - Which is helpful for learners and keeps everything together

D: The source code is included - Assembly programs need a lot more memory (5-10 times more), because they aren't stored in their binary form, and, once assembled, the source typically stays in memory, occupying space.

Also, before you can run them, you'll regularly have to go through the assembly process. Especially in BBC Basic's inline assembler, the OPT keyword is handy to fundamentally confuse yourself, when forward declarations require you to run the assembly process more than once.

Back in the day, inline assembly had the advantage that you didn't have to spend money on an assembler, which sort of was a strong argument.

[Derek_Stewart]

with regards to the BBC Basic inline assembler, this works well on a 6502, Z80, but I prefer,the assembler to be separate and have macro facilities.