Chambers wrote:
> David H. Burns wrote:
>> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>
>>>     BASIC? Not my favorite, but I have fond memories of it.
>>>
>>>     Can't imagine anything people would be more scared to admit to. 
>>
>> You are right on both counts. BASIC was (and I guess still is) 
>> despised by the "real programmers"
>> as not being a *real* programming language.
>> The fact is (that is to say, "my opinion is") that those who talked 
>> that way rightly perceived it as a
>> threat to their elite status and so its development was squelched. The 
>> VB's are different animals.
> 
> It's a completely different beast, for a completely different purpose.
> 
> Visual Basic has always been (and always will be) developed to allow 
> people to rapidly develop programs that have no memory or speed 
> requirements, but only interface ones.  It's great for writing small 
> one-off apps, and even larger special purpose apps, but I wouldn't use 
> it (or use it exclusively) for something to required significant 
> computation.
> 
> That's the reason for the complete overhaul from VB6 to VB.Net.  VB6 was 
> great as a "basic interpreter", but was hitting a wall in terms of 
> usefulness.  VB.Net changed the focus from "basic interpreter" to "rapid 
> app development."  People who actually use it for their jobs get more 
> done with the new version, so it was probably a good decision on 
> Microsoft's part.
> 

This makes sense. One can still use the older VB's to write a BASIC 
program, but the
paraphernalia gets in the way.

David

Post a reply to this message