batch mode compilers are basically wholly an end result of the capitalist mindset. if we're looking forward (or backwards) to a time when to use a computer and to program a computer are identical operations, there's no advantage - and a colossal disadvantage - to having source compiled once, in advance, and the result preserved in aspic
even - maybe especially! - in small computers
@millihertz I hadn't really thought about it that way, but I think you're right. It fits right in with computers going from a thing users were expected to program to a platform for running commercial software, which I like to refer to as "apps" even though it's a much newer term than the phenomenon.
@millihertz IBM's first portable computer, the 5100 from 1975, even came with APL. The 5150 shipped with ROM BASIC, but obviously it was meant to run DOS, and IIRC if you wanted to run a BASIC program you first had to run basic.com or basica.com, then load the program, then run it. It's almost like they deliberately made it harder to run BASIC code than binary code.
@vertigo @millihertz That would mean you could just include a .bat file that would start it, but that still means three different files have to be on the diskette: basica.com, the .bat, and the .bas. And of course even then it would only run on an original 5150 since AFAIK none of the clones had IBM's ROM BASIC.
There was Compaq BASIC and then GW-BASIC that didn't require the Cassette BASIC ROM, but none was called basica.com that I know of. Maybe there was a stub for compatibility with batch files?
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!