why not make a basic programming environment and have a compiler compile it into an assembly program? why hasnt someone thought of that?

There are some of those out there. There was one released that converted 86 basic to machine code (ASM--I know they aren't the same thing) some time ago.

I don't know if anyone reads this far, but I am almost finsished with a Basic game that incorporates assembly sub-programs to enhance gameplay. It is a Horror RPG, originally started text based, but now with the help of assembly I am converting sections that used to be randint( determined to small, fun, GOOD LOOKING mini games. Granted, they wouldn't hold up by themselves, but worked into the plot of the main game, they are great.
The game is called Charles Dexter Ward (CDW) and will be released for the TI-83+ before Thanksgiving.
If anyone has any suggestions or comments, post 'em here if you want, but it would be cool if you e-mailed me instead. I don't know If I will be able to find this after I post, what with 10 pages and all...

thanks for your time.

Personally, I like it would be great. I used to always make BASICS stuff, but once ASM come out I felt beaten. I don't have time to learn ASM. I rather program in BASIC than ASM anytime.

There is already a language out there that's oriented to making games and is somewhat simpler than assembly. It's called Super Chip8. It only contains about 40 commands, so it should be pretty simple to learn. You don't have to worry about the hardware- specific aspects of asm programming, but you can use sprites so it is useful for games. It is an interpretted language, but shouldn't be nearly as slow as TI-BASIC, because it is tokenised on your computer before it is transferred to your calculator (sort of like Java). Super Chip8 interpretters exist for the TI-83, 85, 92, 92+, and 89, and the same program will run unmodified on all 5 calcs. I wrote the 92/92+/89 one. ticalc.org hasn't posted the 89 version yet but I uploaded it. Some of you may find chip8/super chip8 useful, so go check it out. If you want some chip8 information go to the url listed as my page below my name. Hope this helps some of you.

Sounds good. where can I get Super Chip for the 89? The link below your name didn't work. Thanks

I had connection problems while uploading the 89 version to ticalc.org so I emailed a copy to Bryan Rabeler. It seems that he hasn't had a chance to post it yet. I will post a copy at the above address (not the same as the address in my last post). Note that this is temporary and you should always look for the latest versions of my programs on ticalc.org. Thank you for your interest.

Thanks

As i remember chip8 games were really bad. I think we could make a better interpreted language. Maybe based on this language but with some improvements or maybe the language is fine just the games aren't coded well.

Well I would most like this. I have made Basic
games and I have made ASM games. Granted the ASM
games never got finished. It was just too much
work. To let some of you out there know I did
bring back the game target. I got to version
4.1 before the calc was stolen. I still have it
on my freinds calcs though and play it. I have
a Ti-86 now. It was written on a Ti-83. I had
sprites, moving objects and more. I spent hours
optomzine the code. The first time it barly was
playable. It is great now.
Also I made a flying game where you fly through
the skys. ALL written in Basic. I showed my
programing teacher it and it took her two days jsut
to figure out how it worked. I have written
mutilplayer games for the 83 (over the link)
and I have written encription allgorithems.

Granted it could be faster in AMS. I love ASM,
but what got the job done? Basic. So I would
love to have some ASM moduals to use

Think about it this way - ASM can input numbers.. but not so easily.. probably the reason TI included BASIC to be easily programmable was the fact that it can be used to make math programs. Count the # of asm math and # of basic math programs and you'll see what I mean. Yet definatley, ASM is better for game programming, but of course, you have to start somewhere.

I feel the need to take a stand. Ti-BASIC is great when used what it is used for (mainly math libs that extend the function of the calculator) several of which I've made. People who want to make math progs on the Calc in ASM are in the same boat why re-invent the wheel, besides less time and effort. Essintialy my point is that BASIC is not a programing language, it's a scripting lang. You CAN enter an entrire BASIC program at the home screen seperating it with colons (:) There is no difference with typing in commands at the home screen then into a program. Seeing as the calc wasn't made for games then it goes to say that BASIC wasn't made for games. Now while the calculators hardware wasn't made for games either it works much bettor to accsess the hardware directly (or inderectly through pre-coded ROM routines) then to use the entire SLOW OS provided by TI for math. Sorry I kinda got off a little, but in short stop calling BASIC a programing langauge, instead use the term "Scripting Language" as it is more appropriate.

THANX
-Gen_Witt

this is WAY off the topic, but (obviously) i thought i'd post it anyway.

1. please spell it TI not Ti. Ti is a japanese or
chinese word. (chi)

2. asm is for graphical speed.

3. BASIC is for mathematical ease.

end of discussion.

-KAKE

>1. please spell it TI not Ti. Ti is a japanese
> or chinese word. (chi)

I hate when people don't use TI. Makes me want to punch the hell out of something.

Jimmy

(And here come the replies saying "Ti")

PLEASE!!! I'm pretty sure that I speak for everyone when I say, Quit with your incessant whining about people's style! I don't see anyone telling you HoW tO sPeLl Or TyPe ThInGs!!! Unless you have something worthwhile to contribute, just keep your mouth shut. No one cares about the Japanese "Ti" anyway! (No offense to anyone here that is Japanese.) I guess that's it. I sure hope the Ti-Calc people clean these postings up, though.

1) It doesn't matter one bit.
2) ASM is for whatever you want to program into it.
3) BASIC is for programming ease.

For all those asmers out there, I just want to comment on BASIC 89. The basic for the 89 is so much more proficient then lower versions of the calcs. BAsic provides an opportunity for ALL people to foll around with and program something. ASM is much harder to learn, and debugging it is a killer. Basic is easier. I program in C++, and to my delight, the TI-89's basic hosts MANY commands that C++ uses(differant syntexs though). I yake programming courses in C++ and its extremly usefull for me to program the same programs in basic(as C++), and reveiw certain programming techniques and theorys. To my delight the other day, i found that ti-89 basic supports ARRAYS. For all you non programmers an array is a single variable that hosts as many data spaces in the same variable as needed.***heres an example to wanabe basic programmers*** For example, the variable
"example" can hold x amount of numbers, chars, etc..
if i use a statement such as:

for a,1,99
a->example[a]

the variable example will contain the scalar numbers of 1-99! This open an endless slew of possibilities! You can creat games based off this method(assign characters and compare them in the arrays etc..)..To those who already understand this, forgive me rambling off....

Anyways BASIC is not dead, and it provides an easier way of programming, and can be used to practice C++ theory programming.

Anyways if someone developes a C++ compiler for the 89/92, then basic WILL SUCK, and asm will have competition..
my .02 $

Will the arrays store strings in their elements?

- Shayne

Hey if anyone here can help me with some advanced programing of any kind please e-mail me. I don't care if its a .txt tutorial or you telling me how to do it. I just need some help. I already now the basics but i can't find no advanced help anywhere.


Thanks

Isn't it interesting that we're all programmers, yet we can't spell? (I take much of the blame myself, I'm far from perfect)

Just a little FYI

This is what we would call a 'syntax' error...Hehe, I couldn't resist saying it!