I think that mixing BASIC and ASM would be an exelent way to make good programs for the TI calcs. It would proably not help much in most games, but other kinds of programs would be easier to make.

There seems to be two ways of mixing asm and BASIC, either you have an ASM program which calls BASIC functions of the reverse.

Sometime ago I was working on making it possible to include BASIC commands in ASM. This would be done by calling a special (buildin) function after specifying the tokenized BASIC code. I think that this would have been a great iomprovement to ASM, but I was not able to make the functions work (and I have not had the time to work on it since then).

One way of improving the cababilities of BASIC is to use the method used for TI82 shell to allow to call functions in the ROM. By making small modifications to the shells are started now, BASIC programs would have acces to some part of the system memory and they would be able to run functions in the ROM.

I thinj both of these suggestions could improve the quality of programs (not games), espsecially the first method suggested could make a big difference.

Dines

I totally agree that basic shouldn't be too basic. When I am programming something in BASIC, their are a lot of API type functions that I use to save time and memory. For example, I am about to release a BASIC sprite reader that allows non-ASM writers to use sprites in their programs. I think that if we try to keep Basic programs too simple, then the programs will start sucking really bad.

FORGET GAMES. Let's just talk about Basic in general

What I want to see:

-Arrays- God, we need arrays. I hate messing around with strings and matricies for simple data manipulation and storage. Just think of the possibilities!

-White Line Draw- My TI86 manual has a misprint which mentions the ability to draw a white (erase) line. Sadly, there is no such feature. Good idea, let's get it through ASM, thank you.

-Extended characters- The calculator has tons of neat and funky characters that are not available to the average typist without an awkward assembly program's assistance.

-Interchange- How about an easy way to change a variable to a string and vice-versa?

---------------

<Opinion>
Basic is portable, flexible, universal, easy, and does not require any additional software to program. It's just SLOW. Let's work to speed this up a bit and make it easy on everyone.
</Opinion>

(Oh yeah, my TI-86 does solver( 5x* cos(3x)= 0.5, x, 1) in 3.5 seconds. HA!)

-PHiLiB0B

Good ideas. I like the idea or some asm in BASIC. I'm an asm programmer. I've started writing basic libraries or applets as some people like to call them for the 83 before but everyone said it was a bad idea. Would all these functions be in one large program or separate smaller programs. If they were all grouped together maybe a=1 for calling the white line. a=2 for calling the sprite routine plus a list or maybe a matrix for the data of the sprite. Lists would be easier and smaller but that would require people to know binary. I don't know how basic programmers would prefer to input their data before calling one of these applets. Just some things we need to think about. Also many BASIC games aren't graphical. Maybe with the help of asm we can get good and graphical games in basic. Not all games need to be fast like sqrxz some games such as mind puzzles are fine if they are slow but graphics are certainly lacking in BASIC. As an asm programmer sometimes i wish i could write a line of basic rather than several lines of asm even in my games not just advanced math programs. I'd be willing to write some applets.

Two things:
1) About the changing a string to a variable...it's actually pretty easy. Just do this:
Str1->Y1
Y1->A
That's it!
2) Second, I think I ahve a better way for input. It would be like Zazmload for the 83:
"FUNCTION
Send(9pgrmASM
No need to waste a variable! Just use ANS!
Just my thoughts.
-David Clamage

Whoops... sorry about that...

~ I was talking about ME! ~

The capabilities of drawing a white line and converting string to variable are available on the 83 but _not_ my 86 (or the 85, for that matter)

Hope I didn't confuse anyone!

Converting strings to vars is very easy on the 85/86. If A is the string, just use:
St>Eq(A,A)
A->A

Done.

Yes but is that the symbolic exact solution? NO its a numeric approximation. All the things you listed are available to hp user's who use the HP48. I think it's time we conquore these problems on the ti calcs.

I own a TI-83 and after the line command you can put a 0 to tell it to be a white line. I don't know if it's the same for the TI-86, but give it a try. The code for the 83 is:

Line (X1, Y1, X2, Y2, 0)

Not on the 86.

*snip*
-Arrays- God, we need arrays. I hate messing around with strings and matricies for simple data manipulation and storage. Just think of the
possibilities!
*snip*

On an -85: {1,2,3,4,5} ... lists function as arrays.

*snip*
-White Line Draw- My TI86 manual has a misprint which mentions the ability to draw a white (erase) line. Sadly, there is no such feature. Good idea, let's get it through ASM, thank you.
*snip*

On an -85: for(a, xmin, xmax, [.5]* /_\x
ptoff(a, ycoord)[ptchg if you like]
end
Clumsy and inefficient, but it /works/.

*snip*
-Extended characters- The calculator has tons of neat and funky characters that are not available to the average typist without an awkward assembly
program's assistance.
*snip*

Erg, there was a null program I found on here somewhere that let you get at the box character thingy. Maybe a subst([assembly string] command could grab some of the funky ones, too, I haven't tried.

*snip*
-Interchange- How about an easy way to change a variable to a string and vice-versa?
*snip*

On an -85: eq>st() or st>eq() does this, essentially.
Sorry for long post, and I know all this is -85 specific, except for the for func, which works on almost anything.
--Piloter

Extended Chars: If you want to get extended chars in a string, you can get them from mario levels (they're stored in strings, and they have lots of chars you can't normally get.), on the 86. I've made a string with all the extended chars in it, including the black box (both of them - there's an 86 one and an 85 one), and the store arrow and the quote. You can email me if you want it, and i'll send it to you.

I also have a program that'll translate numbers and strings back and forth, but it takes a while. I used it in a matrix encryption program I wrote (that also takes a while).

I'd also like to say: I wrote a really addictive game I just call WAR. It's sort of an RPG, but is more of a combat game, with unlimited #s of players, computer intelligences (of variable difficulty levels), up to 30 spells, two different types of weapons, summon creature spells, and more. Like I said, the # of players (both human and computer) are limited only by your calc's memory. The game also uses lists to remember whether it's been installed already, and you can have up to 3 save games in addition to your current one (the save games can be given names, too). (2/->/ dimL instWAR: if instWAR(1)=0:warINST: The program uses sub-programs, to decrease code size. I've also optimized it a bit. Still, it takes up 45K, and with all three save games being used, it takes up a total of about 65K, varying depending on how many players there are.

The point is, even though that game uses 65K, and is in BASIC, it's the most addictive game I've ever played, and the ONLY one i keep on my calculator. (A ti-86, and there's only about 3 ppl in my school with one. I'm thinking of getting a ti-89... 3d graphics and 500K of memory!!!)

Anyhow, I agree that BASIC games would be better with ASM code, I even use small inverse and reverse text programs in WAR, for the title screen.

ASM isn't actually all that hard of a language, actually. All it takes is looking at source code, what instructions do, etc. fot about 2 weeks (probably faster for most people), and you have a good idea of how to do ASM. ALthough BASIC is easy to learn, it' slow and bulky, which is great for simple math operations, but not for high quality games. If you want to make games/progs that people care about, learn ASM. If you only gonna make crap for yourself that no one will care about, go for BASIC.

I agree with you, but you have to remember that somepeople learn programming quickly(I learned ASM in 5 days),and some people take a while, or may not understand the concept at all.

ok you say you learned asm in 5 days, but how, there is virtually no documentation and even the docs there are are hard to understand. You may say look at source, but source is optimizied and all that crap which makes it almost impossible to understand. Find a book or something that we non-"asm"ers can look at and learn asm and then you can talk.

Ok. You idiot. As long as you have a list of the opcodes and operands meanings, and a processor architechture description, as well as the memory map for the system, you can learn and use asm easily. Assembly or any programming language is just a naatural extension of logic. Obviously your logic skills need work if you cant figure it out. All the things i have listed above can easily be found in millions of places on the net. A "tutorial" is not needed. If you need one, you need help.

P.S. the reason i chose to not post my name is becasue i know many ppl will not like my sentiments, and i want ppl to read the message, and not just outlash at me.

I think that the comments you made are unecessary. Just because some people don't pick up on a programming language doesn't make them an idiot. And what is logic to you might not be logic to someone else, so if I were you I would learn to hold my tongue a little bit.

ok smartass where do i get all those things?
besides, from what i have looked at, i understand asm fine, its not a lack of logic, but a lack of having no life!!

Hey, lemme guess: You're one of those people who believes the following:

1. "If I can do it and you can't, then you're dumb"
2. "If you can do it and I can't, then its dumb"

Try having a more open approach to others' problems; you're usually a lot more useful that way.

Pretty much, before I learned ASM, I knew basic pretty well. Therefore when I started ASM all I needed as a semi-decent tutorial, and a little practice, because if you think about it logically, ASM is much like basic in some ways. By the way if you want to learn ASM for the 83 download the asmguru.hlp file from TI-FILES.

There's plenty of places to learn asm. I learned X86 asm out of this old book from 1988, and it has helped me with all my asm needs. Go down to your local book store and find a book on assembly, or even a good web page/ document, sit down for a week with it, then take a stab at it again. It's not that hard, but without a good understanding of computer architechure (sp?)or any real programming experience (Sorry, BASIC wont fit the bill here), asm can seem to be impossible. It just takes work and time.

Source is what the programmer makes. It is not optimized unless the programmer does it. The object code and the final executable may be optimized, though. Even optimized, it is still understandable, though.

All right I have no idea how you learned it that fast.... It took me about 2 weeks to get most of the basic controls down, but I still am very stuck on how to map keyboard events, and how to do sprites...... Maybe its cause Im trying to learn 68k (are u all talking about z80?) If anyone can help me with the above problems please do, and if you are please explain it instead of just given me the code for it. THANKS....

You're a loser, and I live with you. Haw, haw.