Talk:MBASIC

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Interpreter versus compiler

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

See Interpreter. MBASIC was never described as anything but an interpreter in any literature I recall. While some steps of compilation are similar to those of an interpreter, it needlessly confuses the article to rehash that here. Pragmatically, BASCOM was the compiler. Encyclopedias should never say things like "but that is not strictly true" unless it's a direct quote, or, possibly and exceptionally, followed by a good explanation. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Interpreter_(computing) is the current link. See the Bytecode interpreters section: "There is a spectrum of possibilities between interpreting and compiling ...". MBASIC is a tokenized basic as is GWBASIC. This similar to JAVA being compiled for a JAVA virtual machine. If you save an MBASIC program and do not specify save as ASCII, you are saving the tokenized version.

You are correct about the description in the literature. The literature did not portray an accurate distinction, especially since it was widely recognized that UCSD Pascal "compiled to a P-machine". Madkaugh (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Add topic