I remember in the 80ths in the german magazine „64er“ was once a Tiny Basic Compiler. It has a reduced instruction set . But it was almost as fast as assembler.

@JosipRetroBits

6 ай бұрын

That would be nice to try out, thank You :) Cheers!

Very interesting video Josip. There are so many compilers out there. It's hard to choose the right one. There's an interesting alternative called Laser BASIC by OASIS. It extends the BASIC with new commands like Simons BASIC but it's faster and it's compatible with a compiler also made by OASIS. I've not tried the combo but it may worth a try for all C64 BASIC programmers.

@JosipRetroBits

4 ай бұрын

Oh thanks for the info. I haven't heard of Laser Basic, I have to try it out :) Sorry for the late reply :) Cheers!

In the mid 1980s at around 15 years old I got my parents to buy me a C64 compiler for Christmas and I lost sleep being so excited about getting it on Christmas Eve, I was a super nerd lol.

@JosipRetroBits

Жыл бұрын

On Christmas Eve, that is such a lovely memory to have :) Ha ha, I hope that You are still super nerd :)

I enjoyed your video. After taking an unplanned break from C64 for more than thirty years, it's sad how much I've forgotten. Got my THEC64 a while back, and I've been refreshing my memory. I had the Blitz compiler way back then, but never used the BOSS. TheC64 is great and I'm going to dip my feet into compiling again.

@JosipRetroBits

Жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it! Yes, You can have a really fun time with The64. Welcome to the world of Commodore 64 :)

@Vector_Ze

Жыл бұрын

@@JosipRetroBits I guess you meant 'welcom BACK to the world of Commodore' , heh. Thanks.

@JosipRetroBits

Жыл бұрын

Oh Yes, my mistake :)

For the ultimate in compiled BASIC for the 64 nothing beats VISION BASIC, on the fly compiling right after you type run. Before this the best I could find that was BASIC like was ABACUS FORTRAN for the c64. Both can create stand alone programs that will run on a stock 64.

@JosipRetroBits

Жыл бұрын

As far as I know VISION BASIC requires an extra 256K of RAM, so that is a completely different beast :) But I agree that is more powerful, Yes.

@Centar1964

Жыл бұрын

@@JosipRetroBits The compiler requires extra ram but it makes programs that do not require extra ram.

@JosipRetroBits

Жыл бұрын

@@Centar1964 Ok, so extra ram is needed just for compiling process. Thanks.

As much I enjoy this video.... there is now a new BASIC that is also an assembler, and is self compiling. To me it's one of the coolest things ever (and no, i have no affiliation with the sole (!) authour of this, I live on the other side of the world). I have bought it, and it's amazing. Don't want to disclose his details in public though, since he seem to think it's to much work selling it (he has a day job). But Google is your friend, and there are videos he himself put up on KZread of it's capacity. Requires an REU though, if you're not using an emulator.

@JosipRetroBits

Жыл бұрын

Yes, I read somewhere about this but I do not like the REU requirement. But again there are new OS's for C64 and C language support and other languages there are lots of new software for Commodore 64 to test out, so it is exciting time to have Commodore 64 :) Sorry for my late replay :)

@BustaHymen

Жыл бұрын

@@endwigast5212 Correct :)

@TheSulross

Жыл бұрын

Sonic the Hedgehog port to the C64 showed what a game changer can be As a rule of thumb, development environments are very often more resource intensive than the target runtime requirement of the software being created

@JosipRetroBits

Жыл бұрын

@@TheSulross Yes, that is in most cases true. Besides Sonic which requires REU, I was amazed by "C64anabalt" game, a fluid and fast game without REU.

Cool video! Optimising for the compilers looks like fun, presumably for more complex basic programs it could become quite a big job to get the best performance out of the compiled version?

@JosipRetroBits

Жыл бұрын

Definitely, It would take a lot of time to optimize the code and of course, it takes then a lot of time to compile it. Also, it is not easy to debug the final code, especially when the compiler is done with no errors but the program is not behaving as it should....so these compilers are not working in all cases, there are some quirks :) But still, they are amazing peace of software!

At 16:10 interesting that you have scratched the file and saved instead of SAVE”@0:WAVES”,8. Have you ever had an issue with this command? I read it might corrupt your disk but I never had a problem with it.

@JosipRetroBits

Жыл бұрын

Yes, I wanted to show how to delete files from a disk :) But, during some years, I did have a couple of issues with "save @0", but I can't be sure was it the command or disk drive issues...so...

@commocore

Жыл бұрын

@@JosipRetroBits I always used “S0:” to scratch the files, but I am not sure what zero stands for anymore :D. It works well without for this one as well as for overwriting command. Interesting!

@JosipRetroBits

Жыл бұрын

@@commocoreI believe that 0 is for basic programs, 1 - is for other binary files.. perhaps... :) But @0 as a Save and Replace should work just fine in most cases...Yes.

@commocore

Жыл бұрын

@@JosipRetroBits Ah, cool. Great video by the way, the BOSS balls example destroyed my brain :).

@JosipRetroBits

Жыл бұрын

Me too, it is mind blowing :)

No need to load ,8,1 if it loads at $0801 as any BASIC program does.

@JosipRetroBits

Жыл бұрын

Yes, that is true in that case, but it is safer to let the software decide where to load itself :)

I think written in assembler it execute faster.

@JosipRetroBits

Жыл бұрын

Yes, for sure. There is nothing that can be compared with assembly but to get these speeds compiling basic code is fascinating :) Thank You for watching!