Ask HN: Why did Commodore have a better BASIC line editor than Apple?

The Commodore editor didn't actually have much logic to it, it actively used the screen as a buffer, and executes commands from the current line when you hit return. There are some tweaks to the way output is generated to make it easy to not corrupt the input if you're retyping things with edits, that a line editor wouldn't do.

I've not used an Apple in a long time, but I'm assuming the line editor heritage from the mainframes used to program the first one carried through.

It's a difference in mindset. I'm a fan of TECO, which is older than EMACS and even weirder. So, I can get along with almost anything better than the hell of loading data by toggle switches.

On the Apple II, you can use the ESC + arrow keys (or IJKM) to reposition the cursor and edit a line. Isn't that the same thing?

https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/546/apple...

Chuck Peddle has claimed credit for the PET's (and later Commodore 8-bit) user friendly screen editor. I have heard it in some interviews with him. The computer History Museum has one interview where he mentions it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enHF9lMseP8

Radio Shack's TRS-80 editor is also not that great either.

Robin covered this a few weeks ago

https://youtu.be/P17ej57-B9w

The Apple 1 had no editor or video RAM (it used shift registers). Maybe it was a legacy.

Apple BASIC did have better commands than the Commodore for example for graphics. So why did Commodore not do that?