Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote in message
news:aZudnaw4vachR5rURVn_vwA@giganews.com...[color=blue]
>
>
>
> Charles Richmond wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Gates and Allen worked from a public domain flow chart
>>of the BASIC compiler produced by Kemeny and Kurtz.[/color]
>
> Now THAT would be a cool thing to read! The obvious Google searches
> ( Flowchart BASIC Kemeny Kurtz ) didn't find it; dos anyone know
> where I can find a copy?[/color]

While it's not the flowchart, you can get the annotated assembly language
listing (for a GE-235 computer) for the first BASIC (1964)

[url]http://www.dtss.org/scans/BASIC/BASIC%20Compiler.pdf[/url]

as well as an emulator for the computer and the Dartmouth Time Sharing
System (DTSS) it ran on.

[url]http://www.dtss.org/[/url]

The first BASIC manual can be found here:

[url]http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dartmouth/BASIC_Oct64.pdf[/url]

It's interesting to note that most people think of BASIC as an interpretive
language since that was the way BASIC was implemented on small
computers in the '70s and '80s. The original BASIC, though, was a true
compiler.

Tom Lake

Well, not BASIC itself but...

He did write a series of articles on Programming Tips, Techniques, etc. for
the MITS newsletters. You can probably get some clues out of those.


-J


"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote in message
news:79SdnRJxvNaNj5rU4p2dnAA@giganews.com...[color=blue]
>
>
>
> I am curious as to whether any written-by-Bill-Gates, original-
> source, not-a-later-disassembly, source code for any BASIC on
> any system has ever been published. I would very much like
> to examine the coding style, commenting philosophy, indentation
> scheme, etc. that Bill Gates used when he was writing BASIC
> interpreters.
>
> --
> Guy Macon
> <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
>[/color]

John Crane wrote[color=blue]
> Well, not BASIC itself but...
> He did write a series of articles on Programming Tips, Techniques, etc. *for
> the MITS newsletters. *You can probably get some clues out of those.[/color]

Are those MITS newsletters archived somewhere?

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:26:09 GMT, [email]no.spam@no.uce.bellatlantic.net[/email]
wrote:
[color=blue]
>Actually the story I'd heard was they wrote using cross platform
>assemblers and compilers using systems Like GEtymenet or
>similar modem connected remote mainframe systems.[/color]

Ed Roberts had a DG1 that he rented out timeshare. He had to
sue at least one client, a jeweler I believe, for not paying his bill.
I copied that suit while searching the clerk's records at the
court house in Albuquerque for the infamous basic lawsuit,

Get this: it appears the original contract for basic signed by
Gates, Allen and ol' Ed was part of the court's file, and when
they went to microfilming everything, after they had it on film,
they simply threw it away

That piece of paper might've been worth a million bucks!

I've seen reports Gates used an ASR-33 from his
apartment (wanna see a photo of the front door?) to
access a PDP-10 owned by the school district.

Bill

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:21:01 -0800, Glen Herrmannsfeldt
<gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Charles Richmond wrote:
>(snip)
>[color=green]
>> Gates and Allen worked from a public domain flow chart of
>> the BASIC compiler produced by Kemeny and Kurtz.[/color][/color]

I read somewhere they used the PDP-10 basic manual.

Bill

"Greegor" <Greegor47@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9bd8b3e0-6f88-4401-a2e4-cc677eb15f19@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
John Crane wrote[color=blue]
> Well, not BASIC itself but...
> He did write a series of articles on Programming Tips, Techniques, etc.
> for
> the MITS newsletters. You can probably get some clues out of those.[/color]

Are those MITS newsletters archived somewhere?


Years ago when I was researching this, I only found a few issues on the net.
So I ordered the full set on CD from Dynacomp.

[url]http://www.dynacompsoftware.com/[/url]

And BTW, these guys have been in business since the 70's. You can see their
ads in old issues of Byte. They are one of the few survivors of that era.

Nowdays, there may be a full set on the net somewhere.
They were called "Computer Notes".


-John

John Crane expounded in
news:dL6dnbJLesg0Q5TUnZ2dnUVZ_tbinZ2d@pghconnect.com:
[color=blue]
>
> "Greegor" <Greegor47@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9bd8b3e0-6f88-4401-a2e4-cc677eb15f19@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com.
> .. John Crane wrote[color=green]
>> Well, not BASIC itself but...
>> He did write a series of articles on Programming Tips, Techniques,
>> etc. for
>> the MITS newsletters. You can probably get some clues out of those.[/color]
>
> Are those MITS newsletters archived somewhere?
>
>
> Years ago when I was researching this, I only found a few issues on
> the net. So I ordered the full set on CD from Dynacomp.
>
> [url]http://www.dynacompsoftware.com/[/url]
>
> And BTW, these guys have been in business since the 70's. You can see
> their ads in old issues of Byte. They are one of the few survivors of
> that era.
>
> Nowdays, there may be a full set on the net somewhere.
> They were called "Computer Notes".
>
>
> -John[/color]

A little googling seems to show the following resource:

[url]http://www.startupgallery.org/gallery/computernotes.php[/url]

I didn't review it much, but it would appear that all of the articles are
there.

Warren.

<Bill@sunsouthwest.com> wrote in message
news:6mjig4lsdkppu40c06to1cbbkr8lvph5gi@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:21:01 -0800, Glen Herrmannsfeldt
> <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Charles Richmond wrote:
>>(snip)
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Gates and Allen worked from a public domain flow chart of
>>> the BASIC compiler produced by Kemeny and Kurtz.[/color][/color]
>
> I read somewhere they used the PDP-10 basic manual.[/color]

Yes, Altair BASIC was patterned off of DEC BASIC-Plus,
not off of the Dartmouth original directly. It's a pity
MS never put the MAT functions back in it when computer
memory size grew.

Tom Lake

John Crane wrote:[color=blue]
> "Greegor" <Greegor47@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9bd8b3e0-6f88-4401-a2e4-cc677eb15f19@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> John Crane wrote[color=green]
>> Well, not BASIC itself but...
>> He did write a series of articles on Programming Tips, Techniques, etc.
>> for
>> the MITS newsletters. You can probably get some clues out of those.[/color]
>
> Are those MITS newsletters archived somewhere?
>
>
> Years ago when I was researching this, I only found a few issues on the net.
> So I ordered the full set on CD from Dynacomp.
>
> [url]http://www.dynacompsoftware.com/[/url]
>
> And BTW, these guys have been in business since the 70's. You can see their
> ads in old issues of Byte. They are one of the few survivors of that era.
>
> Nowdays, there may be a full set on the net somewhere.
> They were called "Computer Notes".
>[/color]

This publication is where Bill Gates wrote his diatribe about
the hobby programmers being *thieves*...

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

"Charles Richmond" <frizzle@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:geduae$9sk$1@registered.motzarella.org...[color=blue]
> John Crane wrote:[color=green]
>> Nowdays, there may be a full set on the net somewhere.
>> They were called "Computer Notes".[/color]
>
> This publication is where Bill Gates wrote his diatribe about
> the hobby programmers being *thieves*...[/color]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists[/url]

- Bill

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 03:02:07 -0400, I waved a wand and this message
magically appears in front of Bill Leary:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > This publication is where Bill Gates wrote his diatribe about
> > the hobby programmers being *thieves*...[/color]
>
> [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists[/url][/color]

As he's made billions, I think he's got a damned cheek writing that.
--
[url]http://www.munted.org.uk[/url]

Fearsome grindings.

<Bill@sunsouthwest.com> wrote in message
news:3piig490osrdq09app6o32fjr6hcpbnqq9@4ax.com...[color=blue]
>Ed Roberts had a DG1 that he rented out timeshare... <snip>[/color]
[color=blue]
>Get this: it appears the original contract for basic signed by Gates, Allen
>and ol' Ed was part of the court's file, and when they went to microfilming
>everything, after they had it on film, they simply threw it away... <snip>[/color]
[color=blue]
>I've seen reports Gates used an ASR-33 from his apartment (wanna see a
>photo of the front door?) to access a PDP-10 owned by the school district.[/color]

Hey Bill,

If you get a chance to see the movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley" do so.

In the movie, Gates gets the contract for Altair BASIC and meets Ed Roberts
who is a little sceptical it seems because Gates is just a kid. Gates
holes-up in a fleabag motel (apartment?)somewhere down-there and writes
Altair BASIC.

I don't recall if the movie showed Steve Allen much at that point.

The VHS rip is available as a torrent. Just google "Pirates of SIlicon
Valley" download

You'll find it.

Bill

"Tom Lake" <tlake@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gea24h$vcl$1@news.albasani.net...[color=blue]
>It's interesting to note that most people think of BASIC as an interpretive
>language since that was the way BASIC was implemented on small computers in
>the '70s and '80s. The original BASIC, though, was a true compiler.[/color]

Hi Tom,

As long time and still active Software Developers, my Business Associates
and I have been involved with Microsoft BASIC as well as other BASIC
compilers as application developers for many many years. I know what you
mean about "most people" but consider that in 1988 with a history of other
BASIC compilers including DR CBASIC as an Engineering Technologist I wrote a
CAD script parametric drawing and manufacturing details generator for
hospital operating room air distribution systems in compiled QuickBASIC 2.
These scripts were generated on the PC running MS-DOS 3.X and uploaded to
the Prime/Computer Vision Mini where they ran multiple jobs and plotted
drawings in the PRIMOS/MEDUSA environment.

By 1989 I was working with Mixed language programs combining compiled
QuickBASIC 4.5 and Microsoft C 5.1 and MASM 5.1. I favoured C and MASM and
that has been the mainstay of my programming career since I transitioned
from enngineering tyo programming after my QuickBASIC 2 fling but compiled
Microsoft BASIC has been a close second.

Not so with the Majority of my many associates who are compiled BASIC gurus
and have done such things as work for Microsoft and write books and so forth
over the years. Applications written in Compiled Microsoft BASIC and also on
the RUNTIME side MSACCESS have been the main revenue stream for many of us
despite the fact that I am the C/C++ guy and I am brought in for the
low-level and computer-sciency stuff.

Most people I know do not think of BASIC as an interpreted language. Well,
you understand what I mean.

After some 30 years together, we reconverged as a large consulting company
starting in 2001 and we are also a Mircrosoft Gold Partner. We have
transitioned through the Various Visual Basics and for quite some time VB6
was our mainstay although we were early accepters of VB.NET and also C# and
so forth.

My current time is spent between VB.NET and ASP.NET using VB.NET and moving
forward in compiled BASIC as well as in C and C++ and so forth.

Again I have the background of the interpreted BASICs on the Apple II and
C64 as well as other computers, and mainframes and minis as well, and so do
many of my associates, but as I say serious BASIC developers which comprise
most of the BASIC programmers that I have cared to know for the past 30
years or so DO NOT think of BASIC as an primarily interpreted language but
rather a primarily compiled language that carries an "interpreter"
"disguised" as a runtime link library or an API.

Well you get my point about "most people". Depends on the people I guess and
if you are a hobbyist or a developer. It's a great big world out there. Most
computer users these days aren't even aware that BASIC exists. Most that
care too are more likely to use a compiler and VB.NET I think.

Check-ot MONO on Linux. We've done VB.NET running under Mono too. That's
something that most people that I know are pretty much aware of as well,
athough I favour using Trolltech Qt for my cross-platform stuff and C++ for
one particular client.

I might have agreed with you in the 1980's but like me the old fart
interpreted BASIC programmers are in the minority and lurk in forums like
this one.

That's my 2 cents worth.

Bill

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:33:39 -0400, I waved a wand and this message
magically appears in front of Tom Lake:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists[/url][/color]
> >
> > As he's made billions, I think he's got a damned cheek writing
> > that.[/color]
>
> He wrote that BEFORE his billions. He only had millions back then.
> 8^)[/color]

Yeah, he was a trust-fund baby!
--
[url]http://www.munted.org.uk[/url]

Fearsome grindings.

"Alex Buell" <alex.buell@munted.org.uk> wrote in message
news:20081031085253.46c966cc@lithium.local.net...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 03:02:07 -0400, I waved a wand and this message
> magically appears in front of Bill Leary:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > This publication is where Bill Gates wrote his diatribe about
>> > the hobby programmers being *thieves*...[/color]
>>
>> [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists[/url][/color]
>
> As he's made billions, I think he's got a damned cheek writing that.[/color]

He wrote that BEFORE his billions. He only had millions back then. 8^)

Tom Lake

"Alex Buell" <alex.buell@munted.org.uk> wrote in message
news:20081031085253.46c966cc@lithium.local.net...[color=blue]
> As he's made billions, I think he's got a damned cheek writing that.[/color]

He wrote it long before he had billions, and even if that weren't the case,
stealing from someone with billions vs. stealing from someone with very little
is still stealing -- it shouldn't be done, even if in one case it hurts the
guy less than another.

In general I'm not about to defend Bill Gates or his business practices --
some are reprehensible -- but in this particular case his letter and its point
is entirely reasonable.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:12:37 -0700, Joel Koltner wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Alex Buell" <alex.buell@munted.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:20081031085253.46c966cc@lithium.local.net...[color=green]
>> As he's made billions, I think he's got a damned cheek writing that.[/color]
>
> He wrote it long before he had billions, and even if that weren't the
> case, stealing from someone with billions vs. stealing from someone with
> very little is still stealing -- it shouldn't be done, even if in one
> case it hurts the guy less than another.[/color]

That's not the point, he *made* billions *despite* the ongoing
"stealing". Maybe even *because* of all the unauthorized copies. That's
one reason for Microsoft's dominant market position in operating systems
and office software. And copying something virtual is IMHO something
different than taking something physical away from someone.

Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch

"Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch" <bj_666@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:6n145nFj5ggvU5@mid.uni-berlin.de...[color=blue]
>And copying something virtual is IMHO something different than taking
>something physical away from someone.[/color]

On this planet apparently stealing is stealing whether it's intellectual
property or real property.

[url]http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/news/2008/2008_06_25_ip_conf_e.htm[/url]

[url]http://www.uspto.gov/main/profiles/international.htm[/url]

Evidently there are many professions including the legal profession where a
"virtual" service is the deliverable and practicing without a licence is a
criminal offence.

If I undertand you correctly you are providing a legal opinion, albeit a
humble one, in a public forum.

Would I be correct in making that assumption?

I am a professional software developer and my billable time and the product
that I produce are for sale and not for free unless I say they are for free.
The limited time I have in this life is my property whether I lay bricks
with it, write books or software, or practice law or medicine. Are you
suggesting that by not paying for an authorized piece of someone's life by
duplicating an electronic copy instead is different than walking into
someone's home or place of business and taking product or possessions that
have been produced or purchased with the proceeds of someone's time.

Is that really your opinion that you are sharing with the rest of us? A
legal opinion?

[url]http://www.jailhouselaw.org/[/url]

I think your CC65 source code is infinitely better than this latest idea of
yours. I am flabbergasted:)

Bill

Joel Koltner wrote:[color=blue]
> "Alex Buell" <alex.buell@munted.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:20081031085253.46c966cc@lithium.local.net...[color=green]
>> As he's made billions, I think he's got a damned cheek writing that.[/color]
>
> He wrote it long before he had billions, and even if that weren't the case,
> stealing from someone with billions vs. stealing from someone with very little
> is still stealing -- it shouldn't be done, even if in one case it hurts the
> guy less than another.
>
> In general I'm not about to defend Bill Gates or his business practices --
> some are reprehensible -- but in this particular case his letter and its point
> is entirely reasonable.
>[/color]

Prior to the "unbundling" court decision against IBM, software
was bundled with the system that used it. Software was *not*
considered a product all on its own. Gates should have considered
this and avoided the "high handed" tone of his flaming letter.
Software *was* once free, and it is *not* unusual for the
computer community to have some residual feeling about this.

As someone else pointed out, Mi$uck BASIC probably *gained*
more than it lost because of this "piracy".



--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

Digital information is quite different from physical objects because
it's incredibly easy to duplicate. But, damn, that's the point of
digital information! If the person/company who created it enjoys the
advantages of being able to duplicate, for virtually nothing (!),
digital information that had only been created in a single copy
beforehands then why is anyone so surprised that other persons/
companies also want to make duplicates? Along with the incredibly easy
way of distributing such copies over the Internet, this is not an
extension of the notion of "stealing", rather an indication that the
notion of "property" needs to be rethought.

When the replicators from Star Trek are developed in real life, we
will have the same problem again: then physical objects will also be
duplicated, for virtually nothing. Following the usual (stupid)
example seen in the anti-piracy adverts of movie DVD's, you'll be able
to "steal" any car without taking away the original from its previous
"owner" or by causing "financial" damage to the people who created and/
or manufactured it. (Hopefully, the words enclosed into quotation
marks won't be known by then.)

There exists free software for which you don't pay, only if you have
problems with it and ask for help from its official user support. As
for Micro$oft, they apply heavier copy protection to "their" (read:
published by them but developed by companies they acquired) games then
their very expensive productivity software. They know _exactly_ what
they're doing and most people and companies fall for it.