Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.apple2.programmer > #4155 > unrolled thread

Micol Basic (8-bit) VS ZBasic

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.apple2.programmer

Contents

  Micol Basic (8-bit) VS ZBasic Paul MacMillan <paul.s.macmillan@gmail.com> - 2018-01-30 16:19 -0800
    Re: Micol Basic (8-bit) VS ZBasic Deckard <boutillon@free.fr> - 2018-02-01 14:51 -0800
    Re: Micol Basic (8-bit) VS ZBasic Deckard <boutillon@free.fr> - 2018-02-01 22:51 -0800
    Re: Micol Basic (8-bit) VS ZBasic Gary Gray <vengefultacos@gmail.com> - 2018-02-02 17:40 -0500
      Re: Micol Basic (8-bit) VS ZBasic Brian Patrie <bpatrie@bellsouth.spamisicky.net> - 2018-02-02 18:08 -0600
        Re: Micol Basic (8-bit) VS ZBasic Antoine Vignau <antoine.vignau@laposte.net> - 2018-02-03 00:02 -0800
          Re: Micol Basic (8-bit) VS ZBasic Brian Patrie <bpatrie@bellsouth.spamisicky.net> - 2018-02-03 11:53 -0600
            Re: Micol Basic (8-bit) VS ZBasic Antoine Vignau <antoine.vignau@laposte.net> - 2018-02-03 10:29 -0800
              Re: Micol Basic (8-bit) VS ZBasic magnusfalkirk <dean.phares@gmail.com> - 2018-02-04 12:16 -0800
                Re: Micol Basic (8-bit) VS ZBasic Antoine Vignau <antoine.vignau@laposte.net> - 2018-02-04 13:32 -0800
          Re: Micol Basic (8-bit) VS ZBasic Gary Gray <vengefultacos@gmail.com> - 2018-02-04 18:07 -0500
            Re: Micol Basic (8-bit) VS ZBasic Antoine Vignau <antoine.vignau@laposte.net> - 2018-02-04 15:20 -0800

#4155 — Micol Basic (8-bit) VS ZBasic

Just discovered ZBasic and am finding it fast and fairly flexible.  Wondering how people compare it to Micol Basic (4.0, the highest version I can find for //e,//c). One thing is I don't see is how to call machine language routines from MB, and also there is no support for joysticks or paddle/buttons in MB -- without the former I see no way to use the  latter! ZBasic supports paddles/joysticks; the machine language support is hard to use but it is there.

-Paul

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#4172

MB docs + 8 bits programs:

http://boutillon.free.fr/Docs/Programmation/Micol_Advanced_Basic_4_5/Micol_Advanced_Basic_4_5.html

MB doc: part 5, chapter 4 : assembly language integration : pages 181-183

MB supports mouse. MB doc: part 4, chapter 2 : monitoring the user response : pages 167-171

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4173

> ZBasic supports paddles/joysticks;

MB doc : appendix E : compiler reserved words : pages 200-201 : MOUSE, PDL 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4178

I've found Micol Basic to be a bit more modern than Zbasic. Zbasic is 
rooted in the interactive-development model, it's basically the same as 
the Applesoft command prompt where you add code line-by-line. Sure, you 
can tell Zbasic to strip line numbers and let you edit it in a 
full-screen text editor, but that's not its default mode. You keep 
having to take extra steps to get back to the fullscreen editor after 
running your code. And the line numbers always come back

Micol has a more modern edit/compile/run workflow. There isn't actually 
an interactive shell at all. It also has a bunch of more modern 
features: you can create libraries of code and include them in your 
source (sort of like the C preprocessor's #include). In ZBasic, the 
command just pastes the library's source code into your program's code, 
sort of defeating the idea of modularization.

A lot of the other language features just feel more modern in Micol.

I did some benchmarking of various languages ago, and Micol produces 
significantly faster code than Zbasic. Depending on what you are doing, 
Micol can be up to twice as fast, as I recall.

Zbasic does have a several advantages over Micol:

* Zbasic has a 64K Prodos and DOS 3.3 version. Micol requires 128K, and 
only supports ProDos. Therefore, you can't use it to create anything 
that would run on an Apple II or ][+

* Bizarrely, Micol's Double-HiRes character generator is is *horrible*. 
It looks like it might be vector based, as you can see the individual 
parts of each letter being drawn. It's like being hooked up to a 110 
baud modem. The thing is, I don't think it gives you the option to scale 
up the text, which would make sense if were vector-based. ZBasic's 
character generator is pretty snappy in comparison.

* I believe ZBasic (in 128K mode) gives you more room for data than 
Micol. If you have a lot of string data, Micol does let you store that 
in a separate portion of AUX memory. Unfortunately, the Micol manual 
doesn't include a memory map the way ZBasic does, so you're on your own 
to figure out how much space you have.

* For incorporating machine language, Zbasic seems to be a little 
simpler. Zbasic has a CALL statement letting you call an arbitrary 
machine language routine that you've loaded into memory. Micol oddly 
doesn't, which is surprising. What it does let you do is directly link a 
BIN file (that observes certain restrictions) into your code. So, 
creating a CALL function wouldn't be that hard. Micol handles relocating 
the code in memory for you. Zbasic also supports just stuffing arbitrary 
bytes right into your source via MACHLG commands, which you can let your 
program's execution fall through. Micol does support PEEK, POKE, and 
getting the address of variables. It also supports moving memory blocks 
around, which ZBasic lacks. Neither supports inline assembly, like other 
languages do.

I guess which is better depends on your needs and how you prefer to do 
your basic coding. If you like the feel of the old AppleSoft days, then 
ZBasic might be for you. If you prefer a more modern workflow, then

On 01/30/2018 07:19 PM, Paul MacMillan wrote:
> Just discovered ZBasic and am finding it fast and fairly flexible.  Wondering how people compare it to Micol Basic (4.0, the highest version I can find for //e,//c). One thing is I don't see is how to call machine language routines from MB, and also there is no support for joysticks or paddle/buttons in MB -- without the former I see no way to use the  latter! ZBasic supports paddles/joysticks; the machine language support is hard to use but it is there.
> 
> -Paul
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4179

On 2018-02-02 16:40, Gary Gray wrote:
> Sure, you can tell Zbasic to strip line numbers and let you edit it in a 
> full-screen text editor, but that's not its default mode. You keep 
> having to take extra steps to get back to the fullscreen editor after 
> running your code. And the line numbers always come back

+ before typing anything else on the command line will take you right 
into the visual (full-screen) editor, without line numbers.  It's one 
key more than pressing Escape; but it's still pretty easy.  :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4180

IIRC, zbasic generates 65c02 code. What about micol basic?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4182

On 2018-02-03 02:02, Antoine Vignau wrote:
> IIRC, zbasic generates 65c02 code. What about micol basic?

The 128k version of ZBasic doesn't even run in AppleWin in unenhanced 
IIe mode.  "OOPS!  ProDOS MLI Error Code $28 at address $452F"

Meanwhile, both copies of the 8-bit Micol BASIC on Asimov dies with a 
"file not found" in enhanced IIe mode, and crash in unenhanced IIe mode.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4183

Brian, do they run on a real machine?
av

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4184

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 12:29:11 PM UTC-6, Antoine Vignau wrote:
> Brian, do they run on a real machine?
> av

Antoine,

I've got copies of both the 5.25 and 3.5 disks for Micol. I checked both of them, the 5.25 in Virtual II and the 3.5 in Sweet 16, and they both run.

Dean

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4185

Thanks Magnus ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4186

On 02/03/2018 03:02 AM, Antoine Vignau wrote:
> IIRC, zbasic generates 65c02 code. What about micol basic?
> 

According to the manual, it compiles to assembly language.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4187

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 12:07:50 AM UTC+1, vengefultacos wrote:
> On 02/03/2018 03:02 AM, Antoine Vignau wrote:
> > IIRC, zbasic generates 65c02 code. What about micol basic?
> > 
> 
> According to the manual, it compiles to assembly language.

Yes, but 6502 or 65C02 ?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.apple2.programmer

csiph-web