BasDT with RO5

Have been having a go at getting BasDT (by Dick Alstein) working on RO5.

(is he still around?)

Was hoping I could get it working the same – using RO5 BASIC/msg modules – on RO4.02.
(problem with msg files – at the moment on RO4.02)

It patches the BASIC module – nice if some markers could be put in the RO5 BASIC module – ie like ‘mov r3,r3’ to make patching easier when new versions of BASIC appear.

This prog is different from ‘Reporter’ which works along side BasDT.

You load a BASIC file – and can step through it line by line – (following the route of execution).

It gives the option of showing the values of msg$ val% and by using STR$~A% hex values.
(Pity BASIC can’t print out in Binary like – %11111)
(should be possible to make up a Function to do it though)

Pity it doen’t seem to have a ‘goto line’ – you can set ‘Breakpoint’ and then continual running – a ‘Ctl W’ to drop back into the Debug mode – ie if something like !WebsterXL gets – err – gets ‘stuck in a loop’

[edit 1]
Did come across this bit of BASIC – how does it work.
zz$= “1.75”
xx%=zz$=“1.75”

xx% outputs TRUE/FALSE

Pity BASIC can’t print out in Binary like – %11111

Been there, done that, guess where?

PRINT NUM$(binary%,4)

This does other conversions, too.

should be possible to make up a Function to do it though

DEFFNbinary(bin%):SYS"OSConvertBinary4",bin%,END,255 TO ,bin%:?bin%=13:=$END

Pity it doesn’t seem to have a ‘goto line’

GOTO # tag , but not recommended.

xx%=zz$=“1.75”

This is the same as xx%=(zz$=“1.75”), because of the precedence of operators and the equivalence (sic) of ‘=’ for assignment and test for equality.

Did come across this bit of BASIC – how does it work.
zz$= “1.75”
xx%=zz$=“1.75”

One of the downsides of having the same symbol for an equality test and assignment. look at it like this

xx%=(xx$="1.75")

The bit in brackets compares xx$ to “1.75” then assigns the value to xx%.

You load a BASIC file – and can step through it line by line – (following the route of execution).

Would be nicer if BASIC could do this automatically, like TRACE STEP to switch to single step mode, using OS_Confirm for each line. A yes reply will step, and a no reply will drop to the > prompt for allowing things like LVAR etc. Then use TRACE RESUME (or something) to pick up where left off.

xx%=(xx$=“1.75”)

Some other languages would express that more like xx%=(xx$=="1.75") to highlight that the first use of = is an assignment, while the second is a comparison.

is he still around?

I know that name… I think I’ve tried to track him down (didn’t get anywhere). I’m not at my computer so I’m just going to guess … TemplEd?

I know that name… I think I’ve tried to track him down (didn’t get anywhere). I’m not at my computer so I’m just going to guess … TemplEd?

Indeed, Dick Alstein developed BLink, BasDT and TemplEd. I also searched for his stuff quite a while on today’s web, and couldn’t find any trace of him.

There is a snail mail address – but maybe its a college/Uni digs.

I wonder if a post-card would get through.

Ref Ricks’ note – this prog modify’s the BASIC module & some of the things Rick suggests are in it.

You can load a prog – and then either step through it or let it run – in the Desktop.

You can stop it again by pressing Ctrl-W – and step through – or look at variables – and then back to full running.
Set a Breakpoint/Marker – and it will stop there – then back to Desktop – etc – very impressive.

I seem to remember a 32bit prog for putting files in the Resources: – can’t remember the name/author :-( any ideas?

With ref the BASIC code:

This seems to work – more bits of info for the BASIC programming Book.

a= 1.75
x%=a=1.75

x% is either True or False.

There is a snail mail address – but maybe its a college/Uni digs.
I wonder if a post-card would get through.

Perhaps a google query for “Dick Alstein” might give you lead?

I seem to remember a 32bit prog for putting files in the Resources: – can’t remember the name/author :-( any ideas?

Would that be my RFSFiles module ?

There are programs to create individual modules for Resources, but is there a recent one?

Found a old one – ResSave – 2.30 by Epsilon (04-Dec-95) – seems to work ok on RO5.25.

The other one I first – tried was !ResMod v1.10 (23-11-92)

Have been loading BASIC 1.75 on ro4.02 – some of the error msg don’t seem to line up.

Not sure BASIC can handle softloaded Res’s messages files.

With ref to Dick Alstein – is there anyone one here from Big Ben Club – who might know of way contacting him?

Would that be my RFSFiles module ?

I note the site is still HTTP only, something of a dwindling item these days.

With ref to Dick Alstein – is there anyone one here from Big Ben Club – who might know of way contacting him?

I checked the first time his name came up in this thread: he hasn’t been a member since the turn of the century (yes, I know I shouldn’t have data that far back…).

Doesn’t mean some of the other Dutch readers here couldn’t know of a way to contact him, of course.

Thanks for looking.

Since it is a modified version of the BASIC module – you can add :-

BasDt <Obey$Dir>.!RunImage

to the !Run file – and it goes right into the BASIC Debugger.

Still don’t see any means of GOTO line in it – seems you have to scroll down to the PROC/FN you want – to put/remove the BreakPoint/Marker.

(can be a longway down in WebsterXL :-)

(or indeed -search for the PROC/FN)

(I suppose you could put a temp PROC at the beginning of the !RunImage – and link through it)

I note the site is still HTTP only, something of a dwindling item these days.

The argument I have regarding Google’s great push for HTTPS everywhere – is there any actual pressing reason for his site to be SSL?
There’s no scripting, there’s no XSS, there’s nothing asides from pure HTML, some images, and some zip files. Private information of a secure nature is not handled.
So, is there any specific need to be SSL?

(yes, I know I shouldn’t have data that far back…).

Shhh! You don’t admit stuff like that post-GDPR.
Just say “I have a really good memory”. ;-)

So, is there any specific need to be SSL?

HTTP connections are easy to hijack and redirect, HTTPS connections are not. So although you might have a 100% hacker-proof web server which is only serving static HTML files, it’s still a good idea to serve via HTTPS to make sure that the content isn’t being tampered with when it leaves the safety of your server and makes its perilous journey across the internet. With HTTP a miscreant could set up a proxy server which looks and feels exactly like your original server but is full of malware, and users aren’t likely to notice the difference until it’s too late. With HTTPS it’s a lot harder, since they’d need to convince a CA to hand out a certificate for a domain (your domain) which the miscreants don’t control. Or they’d try using a self-signed cert (which browsers should already warn about), or they’d try using an obsolete encryption protocol (which browsers should already warn about), or they’d try using HTTP (which browsers are now starting to warn about).

I suspect there’s also a privacy element – HTTPS makes it a lot harder for your ISP/government to spy on you when you visit websites.

So, is there any specific need to be SSL?

The current version of Chrome flags http sites as insecure (as Jeffrey notes), no doubt other browsers will be doing the same. How long before they declare those insecure sites as not accessible?

Lots of fun to be had in the latter as the number of sites with broken/expired certificate setups is “entertaining” so blocking stuff with such naff configuration is good as far as my work colleagues are concerned.

there’s nothing asides from pure HTML, some images, and some zip files

My site provider was recently taken over and the data transfered. I have yet to get wholy to grips with the implications, but I think I saw some advice on the use of https, and the suggestion that sites like mine should not be too urgently altered, but would need to be in due course.

The current version of Chrome flags http sites as insecure

Not a surprise, as Google is playing net nanny.

At HeyRick you can choose if you want http or not (it doesn’t redirect). I’ve already explained why so I won’t bore everybody again. :-)

HTTPS makes it a lot harder for your ISP/government to spy on you when you visit websites.

Given that we are placing “trust” in third parties. Are we seriously to believe that governments cannot influence them? [I’ll bet the shebang is already polluted with special government keys]

Have been loading BASIC 1.75 on ro4.02 – some of the error msg don’t seem to line up.

Can you explain ’don’t line up’ please?
(I assume you are loading the softload version, and not one you saved from a ROM)

Not sure BASIC can handle softloaded Res’s messages files.

I have just put a new BASIC Messages file into Resources using RFSfiles, and a changed message was used by BASIC.

I just saved the BASIC 1.75 from RO5.25 ROM – plus the two msg files in Res BASIC.

Softload the msg files first then the BASIC 1.75 ROM on RO4.02.
If I use ‘PRINT SM’ I get the error msg ‘or or miss <Filename in’.

Is there a softload version of BASIC 1.75 for ro4.02?

Is there a softload version of BASIC 1.75 for ro4.02?

Yes. All the ROM versions are tailored to the specific machine that the ROM is for – and I am not sure they include the messages. The softload versions for any machine can be found in the System Resources PlingSystem/zip download, in !System.310.Modules.BASIC & BASIC64. They do include the Messages.

These modules can be soft-loaded, but only once between boots.
The easiest way to do this is to create an Obey file in Choices:Boot.PreDesk called !BASIC containing one or both of…
*RMEnsure BASIC 1.75 RMLoad System:Modules.BASIC *RMEnsure BASIC64 1.75 RMLoad System:Modules.BASIC64

Hmm – That BASIC module loads with its msg file – given a different name.

The ro5.25 v1.75 version – seems to have the correct pointer to its msg file – perhaps the msg’s don’t get expanded the same on ro4.02.

I was hoping the same BASIC module would work with ro4.02/ro5.25.

The 26bit version is different – so different patching points :-(
(and having the same version number!!) perhaps changing the version number to 1.749 – would be one way round the problem – of telling them apart.

Is there a standard way of patching modules?

msgs … given a different name.

Messages are handled totally differently – BASICTrans has not been used since v1.57, I think. There are CVS comments about the reasons for the messages name differences.

The ROM versions can be different depending on the machine, and the standalone version from PlingSystem is different again – but it may run on all machines.
I have no idea how they could be easily told apart.

Is there a standard way of patching modules?

AFAIK patching modules has never been suggested, never mind supported with a standard way!

Is there a standard way of patching modules?

There was. The other branch has the !Patch application and Patch files, with their own filetype. It is only 26-bit, I think.

If you download my SpellMod StrongHelp manual you will find a Patch file for the original (copyright) module to correct some errors in it. Later versions of SpellMod – Impression Spell – had these included.

AFAIK patching modules has never been suggested, never mind supported with a standard way!

In addition to patching files, !Patch could patch the ROM.

While looking for a HD download I noticed there was a IOMD-Translate5/24.zip

(Inside was the BASIC msg’s files uncompressed)

Just loaded them into RO4.02 – and BASIC from 5.25 ROM now seem to give the correct msgs :-)

Would the !Patch system work with RO5 if 32bitted?

[edit 1]
Is the Iyonix ROM compressed – I can’t seem to find BASIC? – in a search with Zap.