SGI: Development

Hi here

is it possible to find a basic interpreter or compiler ??

Laurent

Sure, there's Chipmunk BASIC as originally posted on Ron Nicholson's reality.sgi.com page (I have it mirrored here):

ftp://ftp.nekochan.net/pub/irix/Develop ... -irix53.gz

If you need a manual or reference you can find it on the original project site:

http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/basic/

The IRIX binary is v3.4.8b3, (latest for other platforms is 3.6.4) but the documentation should still be mostly relevant.

Hi Laurent,
Just curiousity: why are you searching for a BASIC int/comp ?

i look for t his stuff for my son initiation, not old enought to understand C/C++

Laurent

fzalfa wrote: i look for t his stuff for my son initiation, not old enought to understand C/C++

Laurent

I see.
Just before learning BASIC language on a ZX Spectrum, when I was 8 years old, my father explained to me how to program simple algorithms on an HP-10c calculator (RPN), such as the area of a triangle.
Math was simple and straight, so was the calculator: this was one of the few enlightening math lessons I have ever had.
You cannot feel lost if you can only go in one direction...
Depending on the age of your son, you may want to start with more basic programming than BASIC language .

he is 12y old.... maybe i can learn it some C, but .... maytbe too complex for him

(as i remember, at his age, i do programing asm with 6502 familly......child now seem to be too lazy, noithing count, except girlfriend and moped )

Laurent

BASIC really isn't useful for anything.
It might be better teaching him another interpreted language that has real-world use, like Perl, Python or Ruby.
All of these are available on IRIX. In fact, IRIX ships with Perl (old version, but there anyway).

Nik.

nvukovlj wrote: BASIC really isn't useful for anything.
It might be better teaching him another interpreted language that has real-world use, like Perl, Python or Ruby.
All of these are available on IRIX. In fact, IRIX ships with Perl (old version, but there anyway).

Nik.

I completly agree, the BASIC language isnt really useful for anything and has nothing to do with any UNIX OS.
I'd suggest python, perl is a powerful language and like a big toolkit for anything but not really a classical behaving language, prolly not the best for a beginner.
Without doubts C might be the best language to begin with, I'd say C is rather simple than complex because there isnt really anything complex, some get most times confused with memory management and pointers but C is always a plus if you understand this you wont have many troubles with other languages.
OOP languages arent really more simple than languages like C.

I must admit I first learned how to program in BASIC. When I was little the first thing I wrote (well, that I remember) was a game in text mode graphics on an 8088 where you played the Dinosaucers figthing whoever they did in the cartoon (it was a long, long time ago). While I think its best to learn C before diving into other languages like assembly, C++, PHP, etc. if someone is too young to learn C then teaching BASIC might be a good idea. You get a lot of the math and simple programing concepts without all the complexities of pointers, scope, datatypes, etc. that are critical to being able to use C for anything more than hello world.

Plus BASIC->PBASIC (Parallax Basic Stamp language) is a great way to learn about electronics and microcontrollers without having to know assembly if you ever decide to go that route. That's not to say one shouldn't learn assembly, my knowledge of assembly has really helped my C (and other language) coding so I think that its a vital part of any programer's study which is sadly in contradiction to the Java only curriculum of most CS courses (at least in the US).

If you have an old PC, the BASIC interpreters IBM made were quite nice (and the manuals very well done). Windows 3.1 era machines came with Microsoft's QBasic (its on Windows 95 and 98 CDs even though its not installed by default). I'm fairly sure that DOS-box could run all this in emulation on a UNIX or XP machine if you don't have the hardware.

Isn't Pascal designed for use as a teaching tool at first?
Compilers available on a lot of platforms too.

BASIC.... I remember I did have a really hard time trying to figure out how to do some simple text transformations... But my first programming language learnt was LOGO.

8088... Learning it right now. Luckily the professor allow us to code in C starting this year.
I really don't want to code assembly (yet).

shyouko wrote: my first programming language learnt was LOGO.

Yep, that's a pretty good one to start with too - an easy to read structured language based on Lisp. I can package Berkeley Logo 5.5 for IRIX if anyone wants to try it.

nekonoko wrote:

shyouko wrote: my first programming language learnt was LOGO.

Yep, that's a pretty good one to start with too - an easy to read structured language based on Lisp. I can package Berkeley Logo 5.5 for IRIX if anyone wants to try it.

Does it support turtle graphics? This is fun info - I had no idea I had learned "an easy to read structured language based on Lisp." It's a toss up whether I encountered LOGO or BASIC first - really too long ago for me to remember much about either.

dc_v01 wrote:

nekonoko wrote:

shyouko wrote: my first programming language learnt was LOGO.

Yep, that's a pretty good one to start with too - an easy to read structured language based on Lisp. I can package Berkeley Logo 5.5 for IRIX if anyone wants to try it.

Does it support turtle graphics? This is fun info - I had no idea I had learned "an easy to read structured language based on Lisp." It's a toss up whether I encountered LOGO or BASIC first - really too long ago for me to remember much about either.

Yes, it supports turtle graphics. The project page is here:

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/logo.html

Here's a shot of it running on my Fuel:

BASIC really isn't useful for anything.
It might be better teaching him another interpreted language that has real-world use, like Perl, Python or Ruby.
All of these are available on IRIX. In fact, IRIX ships with Perl (old version, but there anyway).

hmm - I bet the whole generation of programmers brought up in the 80's on Spectrums and BBC's and AppleII would disagree strongly. This core of BASIC programmers has gone on to do a lot.
With a BASIC in ROM you could use the machine out of the box, sure it was limited but BASIC is forgiving and very easy to learn.
BASIC is a useful, easy to learn (and remember) language....

nekonoko wrote: Yes, it supports turtle graphics. The project page is here:
....
Here's a shot of it running on my Fuel:

Cool! But hazy memories come back - I'm sure I must have learned some BASIC first, on a Commodore Pet (with a membrane keyboard!) or maybe a TRS-80, before LOGO (C-64/AppleII era, maybe a Vic20)

Personally I still like to mess around with old 8/16 bit computers with built in BASIC from time to time. I just bought a Panasonic MSX FS-A1ST Turbo-R the other day; it boots to MSX-BASIC V4.0.

I do remember some MSX machines in the UK but I guess it came at the end of the home computer boom and the standards pushed aside the rest. I guess the Acorn Axxxx/Archimedes machines had a foothold in schools but even they eventually got brushed aside by peecees...
Does anybody remember the Jupiter Ace - it ran FORTH and looked a bit like a ZX80....?
I still have my Archimedes A305, it was the first machine that really made me go WOW... and I could do soooo much with 512K RAM (shared with graphics)...BBC basic was neat - you could mix assembler and basic..

maxsleg wrote: I do remember some MSX machines in the UK but I guess it came at the end of the home computer boom and the standards pushed aside the rest. I guess the Acorn Axxxx/Archimedes machines had a foothold in schools but even they eventually got brushed aside by peecees...

"MSX" was actually a standard home computer architecture conceived and pushed by Microsoft Japan and consequently wound up being more popular in Japan than anywhere else. In the US there was really only one MSX machine that I can think of - the Yamaha CX5M - which was marketed more as a musical instrument. After MSX, the standard underwent incremental revisions including MSX2, MSX2+ and finally Turbo-R, each improving the overall specifications but maintaining backward compatibility.

Does anybody remember the Jupiter Ace - it ran FORTH and looked a bit like a ZX80....?
I still have my Archimedes A305, it was the first machine that really made me go WOW... and I could do soooo much with 512K RAM (shared with graphics)...BBC basic was neat - you could mix assembler and basic..

We didn't get many of the neat 80s machines over here - it seems that Europe and Japan really branched out and put a lot of interesting stuff on the market while the US was mired in endless Apple and Commodore machines. I'm currently looking to get a Sharp X68000 series machine (preferably an X68030) but I'll most likely need to use a proxy bidding service and score one off Yahoo Japan.

Speaking of Archimedes - here's a neat little project that popped up recently:

http://www.symbos.de/

Its a multitasking OS for Amstrad (another computer make that wasn't offered over here) and MSX machines. I haven't tried it yet, but the demo video is pretty impressive.

maxsleg wrote:

BASIC really isn't useful for anything.
It might be better teaching him another interpreted language that has real-world use, like Perl, Python or Ruby.
All of these are available on IRIX. In fact, IRIX ships with Perl (old version, but there anyway).

hmm - I bet the whole generation of programmers brought up in the 80's on Spectrums and BBC's and AppleII would disagree strongly. This core of BASIC programmers has gone on to do a lot.
With a BASIC in ROM you could use the machine out of the box, sure it was limited but BASIC is forgiving and very easy to learn.
BASIC is a useful, easy to learn (and remember) language....

Being one of the '80 generation, you bet right.
Perl is just a way to learn how NOT to program.
BASIC is plain, simple and fun. Children want to see/hear things asap and a BASIC with gfx/audio commands is strongly recommended.
Forget OOP: not for children.
And I would rather choose COBOL/FORTRAN than Perl/Python/Ruby as the first language to learn.

My personal suggestion:
Try with BASIC (with gfx/sound), then if your son is willing to know more, go directly to Assembly to check for real passion.
Great coders perfectly know (but seldom use) Assembly language.

DDT wrote:

maxsleg wrote: BASIC really isn't useful for anything.

Being one of the '80 generation, you bet right.
Perl is just a way to learn how NOT to program.
BASIC is plain, simple and fun. Children want to see/hear things asap and a BASIC with gfx/audio commands is strongly recommended.
Forget OOP: not for children.
And I would rather choose COBOL/FORTRAN than Perl/Python/Ruby as the first language to learn.

My personal suggestion:
Try with BASIC (with gfx/sound), then if your son is willing to know more, go directly to Assembly to check for real passion.
Great coders perfectly know (but seldom use) Assembly language.

Since I made the statement about BASIC, I will stand by it.

I never said that it wasn't fun and in fact, I started off using BASIC back in the 80's too.
Old 8/16 bit computers were made with BASIC and assembly in mind and therefore had all sorts of extensions that allowed you to access the hardware directly.
At that point though (and there are exceptions, e.g. BBC BASIC) things quickly became a lot harder and a lot less fun.
Standard BASIC however doesn't have these extensions.
Suggesting that assembler should be used after BASIC was funny though. We are no longer in the 80's...
Likewise on COBOL and FORTRAN front...
Modern general-purpose scripting languages however do allow you to get 'real' things done quickly and therefore results can be demonstrated quickly.

From what the original poster said, his son isn't all that interested, so showing that you can get results quickly is important.

Pascal was suggested as a good language to learn programming concepts in - I would definitely agree.

Nik.