Minor nitpick: inline assembly had been invented already. Indeed it had been implemented and shipped for the Acorn Atom in 1980. The Atom packed a quirky but effective BASIC with an inline 6502 assembler into its 8Kb ROM. And a BASIC with rather more features, and an inline assembler, was shipped with the BBC Micro, slightly ahead of the ZX Spectrum launch. Folks on the Cambridge scene had the chops to do better versions of BASIC, they just didn't make it into any Sinclair products until the QL. (And, a later Sinclair product, the Z88, of course, shipped with the Z80 version of BBC Basic a few years later, this time with an inline Z80 assembler.)

Even though the language is 'horrid' I have a weird attraction to it. I have been programming in various BASIC languages for more than 20 years. The last years I maintained a self developed application for my Mom in Visual Basic. Somehow I got things done in that language.

I’m the author of the compiler. I started it 18yrs ago, well before AI, mainly as a PoC. But people started to ask for more and more features … The compiler tries hard to mimic the original Sinclair BASIC but also allows a more modern syntax similar to QBasic / FreeBASIC.

Don't talk bad about ZX Basic. It had :

- IF THEN

- FOR

- GOSUB / RETURN

- DEFN

- GOTO

- READ / DATA

That was the same thing that any 8 bit BASIC of the era.

I have yet my books of learning BASIC (for kids), and there for ZX Spectrum, Commodore, Apple 2, etc... And only had that. The only thing that I remeber lacking compared againts other BASICs, was the ON GOTO, ON GOSUB and ELSE . On the control of flow in BASIC... That is all.

I will not see something more advanced (and without numbering the lines), like while and do loops, or select case, proper subrutines and functions, until I touch Turbo BASIC (and QBASIC)

That was the whole point of when Dartmouth BASIC was created.

Also one feature that 8 bit BASIC lost in the process due to their hardware limitations, was that originally Dartmouth BASIC wasn't interpreted, rather compiled into machine code before execution, a kind of primitive JIT.

Only 8 bit computers able to run CP/M got similar kinds of BASIC experience, like the original one.

Exactly. Most microcomputer BASICs were a live environment IDE, except done with a CLI.

Sorry, but the link is incorrect. Which is link the correct?

18 years ago! I haven't used it myself but I know there are plenty of people who love it.

> also allows a more modern syntax similar to QBasic / FreeBASIC.

This is probably a too-wild idea, but what I personally would love to see would be to adopt the extensions of Dr Andy White's BetaBASIC.

I wrote most of the Wikipedia article about BetaBASIC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_BASIC

Even 40+ years later, it remains one of my favourite ever BASIC dialects. I did badly miss integer variables, but it was IMHO the most thoughtful and considered extension of Sinclair BASIC ever made.

I am a little sad that the SAM Coupé's BASIC, which Wright also wrote, has never had a FOSS clone.

Similar progression path for me, with GW-BASIC in the middle.

However, I got a structured BASIC for the Speccy in a MicroHobby or Micromania magazine (cannot remember exactly), with screen editor, but naturally had the problem it would make the 48 KB memory size even smaller.

It would work better on the 128 KB models, but those lucky ones to own a 128 +3A could get hold of CP/M, with support for Mallard BASIC, CBASIC and BASCOM.

There was a wild range in capabilities in the various BASIC implementations of that time. I grew up with an Amstrad CPC6128, it came with Locomotive BASIC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive_BASIC), which was very capable: at one point I had written a multiplayer game with background music in it, without needing a single PEEK, POKE or CALL. The few times I saw Commodore BASIC programs it was littered with those three.

Oops - fixed it now - I'd set it to private while developing, but it works enough to play now.

> I wrote most of the Wikipedia article about BetaBASIC

If you still want to work on it, add sample code. I think that’s a must for a programming language page.

I see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_BASIC doesn’t, either but at least it has a list of commands. I still prefer sample code, though. It is the better way to present things, even though it will give an incomplete overview of capabilities.

So, yeah, apparently my comment comes off a bit more negative than intended, but: absolutely great work, and the improvements make this an actually-very-usable solution for the platform.

No offense taken. I plan to improve the compiler and add other target machines (currently it generates Z80 asm files already). But I refuse to use AI in this side project :( Just to enjoy it for the sake of coding (you know), so some inrovements will take some time…