BBS:      TELESC.NET.BR
Assunto:  Re: Commodore 64 Ultimate
De:       Dennis Katsonis
Data:     Sat, 9 May 2026 13:24:00 +1000
-----------------------------------------------------------
-=> Oregonian Haruspex wrote to All <=-

 OH> @MSGID: <69FC0AD9.1413.fidocbm@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
 OH> Dennis Katsonis  wrote:
 >   Re: Re: Commodore 64 Ultimate Starlight
 >   By: marika to All on Fri Apr 10 2026 03:45 am
 >
 >  > Mortar M.  wrote:
 >  > >   Re: Re: Commodore 64 Ultimate Starlight
 >  > >   By: Kalevi Kolttonen to All on Tue Mar 10 2026 13:30:01
 >  >
 >  > >  > C64 BASIC is beyond awful and should never be used in 2026. Why
would
 >  > anyone
 >  > >  > torture kids with that lame BASIC?
 >  >
 >  > > I think you're missing the point of retro-computing.
 >  >
 >  >
 >  > Right?
 >
 > To be frank, C64 basic wasn't that great, even back then.  My first computer
 > was a VZ 200, which predated the C64 (I think it was sold as a V-Tech 200 in
 > the US?  Here in Australia it was popular), and even it had a version of
 OH> basic
 > where you could draw lines and do graphics.
 >

 OH> Commodore got a cheap deal on an earlier MS BASIC, then stuck with it
 OH> with the C64. It wasn?t as nice or capable as some BASICs even from the
 OH> same era. But it ended up being less of a disaster than you might
 OH> think, because it practically forced people to learn assembly. A huge
 OH> number of legendary programmers got their start because BASIC was too
 OH> slow or lacked features.

Thats a good point.  Part of the reason I first wanted to learn
Assembly, or "Machine Code" was to do things that BASIC couldn't, and
at the speed BASIC couldn't.  I wanted to do graphics, and it seemed
that the Machine Code programs were the ones that did it.

But I think even if the C64 BASIC was much, much better, I still would
have wanted the speed of Machine Code.
 
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
 * Origin: MS & RD BBS bbsweb.mozysswamp.org (3:633/384)

-----------------------------------------------------------
[Voltar]