Porting GW-BASIC for the MSX | MSX Resource Center (페이지 2/3)

Paragon (1314)

31-05-2020, 13:10

It would be very interesting if this "port" from gw-basic to MSX (MSXG-Basic?), had the ability to manage the mapped ram.
please that
? fre (0) can be more than 28815

By iamweasel2

Paladin (709)

31-05-2020, 15:18

lpereira][quote wrote:

Quote:

The source code (recreated by disassmbly) of MSX basic is already available

Also, the fact that the MSX BASIC disassembly is available doesn't mean you can freely use it. The code in msxsyssrc is in a grey area because it's not licensed under any open source license (it's disassembled proprietary code); it can't be used for C-BIOS, for instance.

Despite that, I wonder if parts of the Basic disassembly can be used only to make the GW-MSX Basic work, and be replaced after (when possible) to have a 100% clean open source code, in the same way Linux once had Minix code in it?

btw, really cool project, congratulations!

Looking forward to see the progress in this project. :-)

By iamweasel2

Paladin (709)

31-05-2020, 15:25

Another important question is, who wrote the MSX Basic extensions that are available only in some computers? I remember reading somewhere that in some cases specific extensions were coded by the manufacters themselves. If that is true, maybe ASCII has some basic code that can be open sourced and then be shared with us? Who has contact with Nishi? Konamiman ?

By iamweasel2

Paladin (709)

31-05-2020, 18:37

I'm thinking here, maybe other classic computer users that also run on Z80 are interested in this (For instance ZX Spectrum users). You might be able to get help from them to convert the main core of the Basic code that will be the same to all Z80 based computer platforms.

Maybe this should be posted in other community forums?

By rolandve

Champion (351)

31-05-2020, 19:20

just for curiosity: what would people do with GW-Basic in their machine? Most basics I know (except C64 and Amstrad) are tailored for the machines they run on. GW-Basic was made for a stupid simple IBM PC with a speaker and no graphical capabilities/sound/mouse etc.

By iamweasel2

Paladin (709)

31-05-2020, 19:38

rolandve wrote:

just for curiosity: what would people do with GW-Basic in their machine? Most basics I know (except C64 and Amstrad) are tailored for the machines they run on. GW-Basic was made for a stupid simple IBM PC with a speaker and no graphical capabilities/sound/mouse etc.

I can't speak for others, but to me the idea would be in the future to have an open source basic with support to not only what MSX Basic already have, but to new features that support the new hardwares the currently MSX Basic doesn't support (like V9990 and OPL4).

By ARTRAG

Enlighted (6933)

31-05-2020, 20:03

Well, I think it's cool by itself even if none is going to use it

By PingPong

Enlighted (4098)

31-05-2020, 20:51

We lack a good basic compiler.
Xbasic is nice, but gas two drawbacks
Limited ram available
Depends on max basic no Independent binary possible

By rolandve

Champion (351)

01-06-2020, 09:51

PingPong wrote:

We lack a good basic compiler.
Xbasic is nice, but gas two drawbacks
Limited ram available
Depends on max basic no Independent binary possible

GW-Basic is an interpreter. Turbo Basic (Borland) was one of the basic compilers together with Microsoft Basic compiler. You can also try Solid V-Basic and see if that works for you.

Ram on MSX is a patchwork of installations (slots/expended slots/memory mappers) so no unified solution is possible. You can't simply ask MSX-DOS 2 for a block of 200KB. In the post Z80 era, memory management, 32/64 bits address busses became the new normal.

By PingPong

Enlighted (4098)

01-06-2020, 10:43

I am a c++ developer for job. I clearly know today and past memory management issues.

in Xbasic kun memory is constrained by the requirement to have both the compiled and tokenized version side by side.
If you take into account that the basic area is itself, at most about 28000 bytes, it's easy to understand that xbasic limitation is somewhat to much heavy.

Of course we cannot afford a full 32/64 memory management on a 8 bit, z80 based machine, for a number of reasons,
but having the ability to use the full 32 or 64k of memory directly accessible from z80 should not be a big concern.

the available basic compiler are too much limited compared to C or pascal alternatives that easily use a full 64k of memory.
but we are going OT.