In article aioe.org>, "Tom Lake" twcny.rr.com>
wrote:

Tom-

True BASIC appears to be a good choice, based on its descent from the
original. The website only lists the Windows and Macintosh OS9
platforms.

They suggest that an OS X version will be forthcoming. Do you have any
inside info about when? "Classic" doesn't work on the Intel Macintosh
platform.

Fred

Tom Lake wrote:

What advantage is there in changing to an ISO version of BASIC *now*?
If most BASICs adhered to a standard then it would be right to
encourage their use rather than the non-standard ones, but that's not
the world we live in. In practical terms there *is* no standard, and
ISO-compliant BASIC is just one of many more-or-less incompatible
dialects.

The notional advantage of a standard is portability of programs between
different platforms and competing implementations. There is now no
chance of ISO-compliant BASIC heading the list of dialects supported on
multiple platforms. If one is to believe the list at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BASIC_dialects then the dialects
supported on the most platforms are:

So after all these years, where better technology has
allowed designers to ditch the compromises they
first had to make, why is there not a converging into
an accepted, commonly used language, rather than the
Tower of Babel that the world of BASIC is?

Is it because there is no committee out there which might
hammer out non-conformism for it's own sake?

Maybe because big-business is not interested?

"Tis the season to be jolly,
Fa la la la la, la la la la. "

JJ