Talk:Dartmouth BASIC

message: DTSS had a big impact on industrial practice.  Control Data Corporation's Kronos and NOS, Univac's RTB (real time basic) and Hewlett Packard (and most likely other companies) based their commercial timesharing systems on the BASIC language and interface.  In the case of CDC, the sytsem was extended to multiple programming languages (BASIC, SNOBOL, FORTRAN and others) but with the same command and line-numbering system. DonPMitchell (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough. You might want to add something about that to our article on the Dartmouth Time Sharing System. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact in Industry 

message: I saw elsewhere this language called Darthmouth BASIC instead of Dartmouth BASIC. Was it a typing error, or a kind of joke reference to Darth Vader? Albmont (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Typing error. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darthmouth? 

message: The page ANSI BASIC has been redirected by the deletionists to BASIC, which says nothing whatsoever about ANSI BASIC or its peculiar interpretation of structured programming. Fortunately, a page that actually covers ANSI BASIC exists at User:PauliKL/ANSI_BASIC, otherwise the correct action would be to remove the link. My "repair" was to link to the user's page. 75.186.5.185 (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been deleted? That's not right. ANSI BASIC was extremely influential on QBASIC and most of the modern implentations of BASIC. In essence it was implemented as Dartmouth BASIC 7 and its TrueBASIC successor. So why on earth did they decide to delete it ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repaired link to ANSI BASIC 

message: There are quite a few "citations needed" tags for this article. Most of them can be resolved by referring to K&K's book "Back to BASIC" which is listed in the bibliography. I'll get around to filling them in sometime. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: The remark that one night discussion session produced the GOTO statement smells like a prank contribution. GOTO had been a staple of assembly language and essentially every higher level language throughout the previous history of computing. Conceivably GOTO is a mis-recollection of GOSUB, a curious feature of BASIC that (thankfully) never was adopted anywhere else. It would indeed be interesting to know how GOSUB got started.
The sidelight about "Geach" seems eminently plausible, perhaps even more so when one realizes that McGeachie is actually pronounced m'gyew.
I hesitate to fix anything in the article because I have never paid enough attention to BASIC to justify pontificating about it.
Mdmi (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: GOSUB just works the way that CALL works in most assemblers. I doubt that there's more to it than that. The biggest difference between it and the procedure calls of other high-level languages is that GOSUB doesn't create a local environment for parameters or variables. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  goto 

message: There is probably a standard way to report them, but the first and third External Link are broken.
Wmdgus73 (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dartmouth BASIC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120702192626/http://www.retrowiki.es/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.186 to http://www.retrowiki.es/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.186
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The system would work by having the DN-30 run the terminals and save the work to the disk. When the user typed RUN, the GE-225 would read that file, compile it, run it, and pass back the results to be printed on the terminal.[13] This combination of machines was later known as the GE-265, adding their model numbers. GE built about fifty additional examples of the GE-265, many for their service bureau business. GE referred to these as their Mark I time-sharing systems.[14]
Either there is some system with a '10' in the name missing (the hard drive??) in this or this statement about adding the model numbers is just wrong  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sejtam (talk • contribs) 07:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted! The 225 was replaced by a 235, and it was that combo that gave its name to the 265. Fully reffed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  GE 225 + Datanet 30 = GE-265?