The C64 was incredible but I thought skipping Basic and going straight to 6510 assembler was the way to go. Got all those extra sprites by interrupting the scan lines, the huge performance advantage, etc
More than once I wiped my source code while zeroing memory.
I enjoyed Byte magazine but Compute! was my favorite:
I bought one of these 2nd hand in early nineties after being introduced to the RPN way of doing things with a Hewlett Packard 28S calculator. Had fun with this machine although it was similar in many respects to ZX81 (and supposedly Spectrum) I grew up with.
The soft- and hardware had similar issues. For a meaningful programs in both cases you would quickly need to descend to machine code, which on both systems was very enjoyable experience. (E.g. BBC micro had far more mature software stack.)
But you are probably right in implying that Forth probably was too alien to ever gain mass adoption, even if the soft and hardware would have been superior to more common BASIC alternative.
Comments
Yeah, sort of the same today.
The C64 was incredible but I thought skipping Basic and going straight to 6510 assembler was the way to go. Got all those extra sprites by interrupting the scan lines, the huge performance advantage, etc
More than once I wiped my source code while zeroing memory.
I enjoyed Byte magazine but Compute! was my favorite:
https://www.commodore.ca/commodore-gallery/compute-magazines...
In my opinion, it’s even more exciting learning machine learning today than 6510 assembler on the C64.
I’d skip early the 1980’s nostalgia and begin the next quest. Kaggle is a good place to start:
https://www.kaggle.com/mmellinger66
And this book:
https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/hands-on-machine-learni...
I always wonder what could have been, if the Commodore 64 and similar machines would have come with Forth instead of Basic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Ace
I think the answer is: They wouldn't have sold very many :-(
I bought one of these 2nd hand in early nineties after being introduced to the RPN way of doing things with a Hewlett Packard 28S calculator. Had fun with this machine although it was similar in many respects to ZX81 (and supposedly Spectrum) I grew up with.
The soft- and hardware had similar issues. For a meaningful programs in both cases you would quickly need to descend to machine code, which on both systems was very enjoyable experience. (E.g. BBC micro had far more mature software stack.)
But you are probably right in implying that Forth probably was too alien to ever gain mass adoption, even if the soft and hardware would have been superior to more common BASIC alternative.
the C64 didn't ship with it, but there were Forth systems available, notably "64 Forth" which was a superset of Fig-Forth