On 06/10/2010 08:44 AM, scott wrote:
>> Sure. And what I'm saying is "80s BASIC sucks so much that it's
>> clearly inferior - and nobody is arguing about this".
>
> Inferior for what purpose? If you want users (who are not programmers)
> of your equipment (which has a simple CPU and small alphanumeric
> display) to be able to do some simple programming to control it, then
> something like 80s BASIC doesn't seem such a bad choice.

What you're saying is "if you don't need a powerful language, using a 
language that isn't powerful may be acceptable".

What I'm saying is "BASIC isn't powerful, and nobody would seriously 
suggest that it is".

Post a reply to this message