Their context wasn’t about IBM buying BASIC, it was about IBM buying DOS from Microsoft. Plus given IBM was a global brand it seems a bit self-congratulatory to argue that only US-developed BASICs count anyway. However even taking your comment at face value, it’s still not true. There were plenty of better US-developed BASICs too.
What IBM wanted was ubiquity rather than technical excellence.
IBM purchased BASIC and DOS from Microsoft in the same transaction. BASIC was the only "OS" installed by default in the first PCs and PC-DOS was an optional extra at launch.
Contextually here "best" also means "best fit for IBM to buy". Global brand or not, IBM certainly had US biases: a US headquarters, more engineers and managers in the US making purchasing decisions.
I can't argue with you on the subjective quality of other BASICs, and I can't speak to what IBM "wanted" other than what we know they eventually purchased. Their "best fit" may have indeed been entirely "pragmatic" things like "ubiquity" or "cheap" rather than "best technically".
> There were plenty of better US-developed BASICs too.
Citation needed on "plenty", I think. On the "microcomputer" Microsoft nearly cornered the market on MOS 6502 BASIC at the time and even the ones that didn't have a Microsoft banner at startup still had a licensed Microsoft interpreter under the hood ("Applesoft Basic" and "COMMODORE BASIC", for examples).
Of the Wikipedia documented "microcomputer" BASICs that weren't Microsoft's/Microsoft-licensed, two were UK-developed (BBC Basic and Sinclair BASIC), and the only other one (Atari BASIC) is listed as not having a stable release until 1983, two years after the first IBM PC.
> IBM purchased BASIC and DOS from Microsoft in the same transaction. BASIC was the only "OS" installed by default in the first PCs and PC-DOS was an optional extra at launch.
Yes, I'm already aware of that. You're building a strawman argument though because that has naff all to do with the statement I was directly responding to:
Microsoft wasn't necessarily a "small company with nothing to lose", either. They had the best BASIC interpreter in the business[0] and everyone licensed from them already.
> Citation needed on "plenty", I think.
BASIC has been around since the 60s, so yes there has been plenty.
> On the "microcomputer" Microsoft nearly cornered the market on MOS 6502 BASIC at the time and even the ones that didn't have a Microsoft banner at startup still had a licensed Microsoft interpreter under the hood ("Applesoft Basic" and "COMMODORE BASIC", for examples).
I know, I was writing software on those machines at the time. I also already acknowledged Microsoft BASIC was ubiquitous. I was disagreeing that Microsoft BASIC was the best, because it wasn't. It was slower than most others and lacked a lot of features too. Frankly, it was shit. But history seems to only remember the victors it seems.
> Of the Wikipedia documented "microcomputer" BASICs that weren't Microsoft's/Microsoft-licensed, two were UK-developed (BBC Basic and Sinclair BASIC), and the only other one (Atari BASIC) is listed as not having a stable release until 1983, two years after the first IBM PC.
Well that's clearly wrong then because there were loads. Apple/Integer BASIC (which was originally named GAME BASIC) which was inspired from HP BASIC (unlike Microsoft BASIC which was based from DEC BASIC). TI BASIC (Texas Instruments) was released in the late 70s too.
And on the UK side there was Locomotive BASIC, which was based on Mallard BASIC (1980) and inspired by BBC Basic, which was originally Atom BASIC (the Atom being released before the IBM PC and the BBC Micro being released the same year). Sinclair BASIC was also pre-PC (1979).
Mallard BASIC competed with CBASIC (mid 70s) and ZBASIC (1980) but I hadn't used those.
There were others too. Some for mainframes, some offered as alternative 3rd party ROMs for micro computers, some loadable from cassette or disk, some that compiled instead of interpreted code, etc. It was a really common language.
What IBM wanted was ubiquity rather than technical excellence.