I think that BASIC games can be good, IF you don't try and use frames so that it is all jumpy. I made a TI-89 BASIC game (School) and I think it's pretty cool. It's not as good as some asm games but if you know what you are doing you can do some cool stuff with BASIC. I think that it would be cool if someone made am asm program that BASIC programmers could use to compress our programs, uncompress then when they you run them, and then compress them back. That would help space restraints.

there are some great basic games out like SLAYERS RPG or BUBBLE GUM CRISUS: NENES QUEST that use frames and are walkaround rpgs so i agree w /u that basic can be good but frames arent always jumpy.

In an uncanny coincidence, I have started a similar alliance, Programmers Anonymous, to make it clear that BASIC need not be basic. I made the webpage (The above URL: www.crosswinds.net/~proganon) yesterday and sent a message to hosting@ticalc.org today. I'd just like to make it clear that we are not trying to rip off anyone's idea and I wish the best to Basmic.

I'd expect the arguments on the Basmic page to be more logical, considering that they are coming from programmers - especially skilled BASIC programmers.

Two of the so-called "strengths" of TI-BASIC become non-issues when the programmer is skilled. Two of the so-called "weaknesses" of ASM likewise become non-issues when the programmer is skilled.

Really, what SiCoDe Software are suggesting is that TI-BASIC and ASM are "equal" when the programmer is not skilled - and if I take that to mean "equally poor", I find myself agreeing.

When the assembly programmer is unskilled and the BASIC programmer is, then it becomes a non-issue. If the same programmer creates a functionally identical program in BASIC to one in ASM, you will no doubt see distinct differences in functionality. If the ASM programmer is skilled (which is very frequently the case) and so is the BASIC programmer, it's still no contest. The ASM program will probably be better. The skill of the programmer should not be factored into the issue because saying that all assembly programmers are so inept that they can't prevent a calculator from constantly crashing is an insult to their intelligence.

--BlueCalx

The only thing I meant to say was that in BOTH languages, inefficient coding results in efficient memory usage.
Happy now?

For those who want to know the actual performance of TI-BASIC programs, I have made a web page giving details on a performance test that I recently made. Even though the Basmic campaign does admit that BASIC is slower, they don't tell how much slower it is. That's what I have decided to do. The results I obtained are basically this:

For simply calculations/control structures, Z80 assembly is approximately 2100 times as fast as TI-BASIC on the TI-85.

For detailed information, read the page:

http://pad.calc.org/basic.html

I may add test of more complex features to this page in the future, but then again, I may not.

I have played damn near every game, both basic and ASM, on Ticalc (my webpage proves this.) Some basic games suck and some ASM games suck. Neither language is better than the other because it isn't a language that determines how good a programs is, its the programmer. Because basic is easy to learn and use, it draws unskilled programmers that are just programming for the sake of programming. This leads to a massive amount of crappy basic programs that make everyone believe that all basic programs suck. Most of you that argue so strongly for ASM have never given basic a chance. Basic is just as good as assembly when both are programmed by competent and thoughtful programmer. Enough of that, I am so tired of all of these basic vs. ASM discussions. No one will ever agree, so both sides should just stop bitching. Try to stop assuming that all basic programs suck...

to clarify: the page is only for 86 programs but I have a 82, 83+, 86, and 89 so I have played a helluva lot of programs for those too. I have also played many games on my friends 85's and 92's.

In my opinion, each language is good for specific things.
I prefer ASM for games because they can draw graphics faster. Also, ASM can delete those damn stat vars on a TI-86 :)
However, I prefer BASIC for programs that require input from the user, such as my quadratic and Homework Tracker programs (which can both be found on my webpage)
If you ask me, the languages arent equal, but neither is superior in every aspect. You just need to try both (and more than 1 measly program, too) and make your *own* decision on which language you prefer to program/get programs from for each subject (i.e. math, games, misc)

It would be good for BASIC programs if what you said was true, but it isn't. If the programmers are equally skilled, the assembly programmer will always do mcuh better than the BASIC one, because assembly is much faster than BASIC can ever be.

Saying that we haven't given BASIC a chance is ridiculous. This may be true for some people, but certainly not all of us. I have done a great deal of BASIC programming, but as soon as I got a Graph-Link I switched to assembly, because I knew it would be better. Honestly, I at first expected it to only be 30 times as fast, or something like that, and was surprised at just how fast assembly could be! It took less than 3 hours of work on assembly programming for me to come up with assembly programs better than anything I had done in the previous 2 years or so of work on BASIC stuff.

In fact, I recently did a test of primitive functions (simple calculation and control structures) and found assembly to be 2100 times as fast as BASIC on the TI-85. Does this mean I have 2100 times as much experience or skill programming assembly as I do programming BASIC? I somehow don't think that's reasonable. Anyway, if you don't agree, you can see my test code, and try to improve the performance of the BASIC routines by a factor of 2100. If you can do that, then I'll gladly take back all of my previous statemtents on this issue. But somehow I doubt it. The address of my BASIC vs. assembly comparison page is:

http://pad.calc.org/basic.html

Notice how I said most of you havent give basic a chance. If you have, then you are one of very few.

I'm not sure if doing the speed tests on the 85 is the best platform. If you did them on a calc. that TI meant to have assembly (i.e. 86) I might be a little more impressed.

What difference would that make? The TI-86 is actually SLOWER in basic in some cases than the 85, due to the paged memory. If your variables are on different pages, then the same program on the 86 will be much slower than on the 85 (they are essentially compatible when it comes to basic programs). The differences in speed would be even greater.

not to mention all that parsing going on! the 86 has more functions than the 85 and is therefore slower (becasue processor speed is the same) it has more interpretation to do so the difference between basic and asm on the 86 would probalby be greater, but still that has no relevence to the quality of games in general.

> It would be good for BASIC programs if what you said was true, but it isn't. If the
> programmers are equally skilled, the assembly programmer will always do mcuh > better than the BASIC one, because assembly is much faster than BASIC can ever > be.

Youre missing the point... Speed does not make a great game. It can help, but then that would make up for poor programming skills. (im not saying your programming skills are poor, just that the speed can make up for that) Basic games be fun to play and also can be AS GOOD AS assembly games, due to the fact that it DEPENDS ON THE PROGRAMMERS ABILITY. Sure, in asm you can asscess all areas of ram and therefore do thing that basic programmers can not do, but to say that asm is 'better' just because of speed is absurd. Im saying that there are good basic games out there and I AM NOT COMPARING THE TWO LANGUAGES TO EACH OTHER,IM JUST SPEAKING OF THE CURRENT QUALITY OF THE PROGRAMS ALREADY OUT THERE.

I never said that speed makes a great game. What I mean is that *extreme slowness* can make an otherwise great game be very poor. As you might also notice, I've never claimed that being able to access all memory is a benefit of assembly programming, since I don't consider that very important. I also never said that BASIC games are never any good, but only that they will always be slow for any complex real-time use. In particular, the following things can never be done well in BASIC:

1) any shoot-em-up game (Space Invaders, Galaga, etc.)
2) any Arkanoid/pong/breakout game (with the possible exception that a very simple version might be barely tolerable)
3) any Pac-Man style game
4) any platform game (Super Mario Quest, etc. with the possible exception of a very simple version)
5) any real-time 3D engine (Maze3D, Daedalus, etc.)

For the Pacman game, try Tron Arcade and Zap! Arcade at http://sicode.ticalc.org
They do not suffer from extreme slowness (although I admit, Tron does slow down a bit in 3P and 2P AI mode), but they do run slower than ASM. It is physically impossible to make them run as fast as ASM. However they are very playable, and that counts far more than a line being drawn too fast to control.
As for the rest of the genres, I agree, unless someone makes the ASM instruction set for calling within BASIC programs. It would drawn those pixels much faster then, and BASIC may have a chance at fast graphics.

Neither one of those games looks very much like Pac-Man to me.

Oops. Soz. Thought you were on about Arkonoid / Tron / Snake games. Now Pacman.... now that's a thought
ROLL UP PACMAN ARCADE!

ok i agree on youre point that extreme sloness can make an otherwise good game bad.

> I also never said that BASIC
> games are never any good, but only that they will always be slow for any complex > real-time use.

So do you consent that some basic games are good and this arguement can be ended here?


>2) any Arkanoid/pong/breakout game (with the possible exception that a very simple > version might be barely
> tolerable)

Hrm... i remember playing an 85/86 version of turbo arkinoid in basic by *gasp* you, and guess what?... That was one of the best basic games i had untill i got a graphlink.

yeah the other games listed are strengths of asm and not of basic.

arcades

>4) any platform game

Are you really sure ?

I agree entirely. I know both languages and, although asm is faster, it is not necessarily better. BASIC has a number of inherent advantages.

1) A little mistake won't crash you're calc.
2) BASIC is much easier to develop, so games get released sooner.
3) BASIC can be developed easily on calc. (Yes, I know of those asm compilers.)

Asm does have more potential in complex situations. No one is denying that. However, if something can be done more easily in BASIC, why do it in asm? (Do we really need quadratic formula programs in asm?)

You can't write Mario (or at least a descent Mario) is BASIC, but there are plenty of other games you can. You can even make scrolling rpg's in BASIC. They're a little slower (obviously) than their asm counterparts, but they're also easier to develop. Plenty of other, less action filled games, can be written in BASIC. If you want proof, click the above URL and check out the PUDs.

Comparing BASIC to asm is like comparing apples to oranges. Some things require the speed of asm. Others can be done more easily and more quickly in BASIC. I'd also like to add that the entire argument is a little odd. It really depends on what calculator we're talking about. There's a significant difference between z80 asm and 68000 asm. There's an even larger difference between the abilities of 82/83/83+/85/86 BASIC and those of 89/92/92+ BASIC.

Obviously, I'm not asm bashing. Asm is awesome. No question about it. But in many cases, BASIC can be just as good and, sometimes, better. The most important thing is the programmer's skill. An excellent BASIC programmer can do a lot of what asm does.

I couldn't agree more. The programming language doesn't matter at all! It's the programmer that counts. Are fast sprites *really* important? They sure add to the game, but a good program doesn't need them. It is true that Basic is slower than ASM (I don't know by how much, everybody seems to disagree, but the general idea is around 1000x slower), but how much of that time is important for the program? Any good programmer can get done what s/he needs to get done with the processing time available. I mean, the TI-83 is a great example of that. (No insult intended), but it is very crippled, and yet there are still great Basic games for it. Don't get me wrong, ASM is far better for side-scroller games, but Basic has plenty of uses.

Exactly, one of you gets it. The campaign is basic = asm, so, like I said, the programmer is the only thing that matters. Basic is still fast enough and can have pretty damn good graphics. So, if the programmers are both equally good, the programs will be equally good. Hence, basic = asm

Well done for putting that down so well. I was trying to explain that to many people -
Basmic is not about "ASM-bashing", or even "BASIC v ASM" - it is about giving BASIC programmers more credit for the work they put into their programs.

I think that you are right and there are differences in the languages, but they each have their good and bad so go BASIC, Go BASICAMS, Go AMS and TIcalc.org should deleat Program/OS/Calc(TIvsHp) ect...