Blitz!64 and Blitz!128 Commodore Basic Compilers. Plus a bit of X16 and Mega65. 

I enjoyed the video. For the Commodore 64, I have two Basic favorites. The one that comes with the computer and the recently released Vision Basic. As a compiler is faster than Blitz and allows greater flexibility with graphics and inline assembly language programming.

Happy and healthy new year! Very interesting video, you got a new subscriber! Thank you very much!

Outstanding video, thanks for your hard work.

I had a pirated copy of Blitz back in the 80s, but beyond using it on BASIC programs, I never knew how to use it. I knew it had various options and other things you could do with it, but since I never had a manual for it, all I could do was run it on a BASIC program and hope it worked. If I recall correctly, I used it on a few simple conversion programs I made. Like one to convert Printshop graphics from Commodore to non-Commodore printer formats by doubling all the pixels horizontally. Or my program to convert a copy of Championship Lode Runner into a data disk for use with the original game (so you could use the built-in cheats). I seem to recall having some other BASIC compiler as well, but I forget what it was called. Then there was one published by Compute!'s Gazette. It only worked on a subset of BASIC commands, but produced really fast results. I think it converted the commands directly to ML, which is probably why it only allowed the use of certain commands.

I always understood that Commodore BASIC was already tokenized upon entry. Does Blitz just have a different tokenization that includes more than just the keywords or something like a p-code?

21:17 If these multiple-NEXTS-with-one-FOR-constructs don't work in Blitz! 128, then it has a bug in its FOR-NEXT-GOSUB-stack handling. We are used to think of FOR-NEXT as real loops in Commodore BASIC (like in modern languages), but that's actually not what they are. They are independent commands only connected by a stack and if used properly, they function like a loop "by accident".

I am familiar with this program and used it a lot in my younger years. I never understood how it worked, I assumed it turned a basic program into machine language but later found out that wasn't the case which really sparked my curiosity.

So did you report this bug to the VICE team? If not, it will obviously not be fixed...

Is this related to "Blitz BASIC Compiler for the Commodore 128 by Skyles Electrical Works" that I used in 1985?

Programming was always a mystery to me. Tbh, i still dont know how C64 games were programmed.

Nooooo this optimization of BASIC seems like something you would find in JavaScript $A = "Hello" + ""

so why not compile to assembler, directly, from basic. no interpreter required. way too complex "compiler solution". so you already have the code and jump tables, why not compile to c64 assembler directly. even the unoptimized assembler code translation is way faster. this was totally non required speed up software, you are smart. also modules/libraries work if you...