Talk:BASIC extension

Rename to 'BASIC extension'?

Perhaps 'BASIC extension' would be a better name for this article? IMO, 'toolkit' gives the impression of utility software rather than extensions (as well as the utilities parts of the extension). --Wernher 19:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think that Beta BASIC was called a 'BASIC toolkit' although some equivalent extensions on other platforms were called 'BASIC extensions'. The latter seems more generic somehow. --Ae-a

In my experience, it's absolutely much more common; 'extension' is used for a variety of such products on different home computer platforms. Conversely, 'toolkit' has been used for books with utility programs and general information about BASIC interpreters (notably, COMPUTE!'s VIC-20 and Commodore 64 Tool Kit: BASIC). With all this in mind, I think the article should be renamed. Let's wait a few days to allow for any convincing counter-arguments, though (BTW, I'll check whether this needs to be officially voted upon). --Wernher 00:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I must say, as the original author of this entry, FWIW, that I've not heard this expression "BASIC Extension" before. AFAIK they were all called "toolkits" at the time and "extension" is more of a description than the generic name. But if you folk all feel it's more generally applicable, then go ahead. Me, I'd probably leave it as a simple REDIRECT or something. Liam Proven 16:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's a UK/US difference? "Extension" sounds more right to me. Here's an example of using "BASIC extension": [1] Mirror Vax 12:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I've always seen these referred to as BASIC extensions (or sometimes wedges. I'll try to dig out some of my old Gazette and RUN magazines and verify this. Crotalus horridus (TALK ● CONTRIBS) 03:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

See, for example, [2]. Crotalus horridus (TALK ● CONTRIBS) 13:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)