 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:30:54 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Welllll... I wouldn't go that far. It was acknowledged as simplified, in
> much the same way that DOS BAT files are simplified or editor macros are
> simplified. It was designed as a beginner's language, so it wasn't
> really frowned upon any more than LOGO or PILOT is frowned upon.
+1. BASIC was used as a good entry level way to teach programming logic
(just like LOGO and PILOT) back in my early days programming.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:47:32 +0200, andrel wrote:
> BTW I agree with clipka, it is a bit of overreacting. It is also a bit
> out of character for Darren, so I guess he was just tired.
+1, I haven't followed the discussion that closely, but I didn't see any
place where DHB seemed to be attacking Darren, definitely seems out of
character to me, too.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
[snip basic info]
For BASIC fans, the Rolls-Royce of traditional BASIC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_BASIC
This is the language in which I first learnt programming. Only available on
1980s-1990s Acorn computers in the UK (and parts of Europe), unfortunately, so
not widely known. However, on those 8-bit and 32-bit platforms, it was a very
complete inbuilt language, practically part of the OS. As well as named
functions, procedures, debugging tools and a built-in assembler, it had very
powerful graphics and sound abilities courtesy of its close alliance with the
OS. There were even keywords for directly poking and peeking to memory
(although that probably makes most people shudder these days!). It was often the
easiest tool for writing multitasking desktop apps too... :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-7-2009 21:57, Jim Henderson wrote:
> +1
seen this more often recently here. Yet another cross fertilization of
the internet, I assume.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> clipka wrote:
> > For quite a while you didn't get any programming language for free with
> > IMB-compatible PCs when they replaced home computers as the private man's
>
> I'm pretty sure you still had GWBasic in ROM.
That was true for some genuine IBM machines (except I'm not sure about the
dialect). The clones didn't have it though, nor did later IBM's as far as I'm
aware.
And the IBM machines were prohibitively expensive at that time, so they never
got any big market share in the hobbyists mass market that had previously been
dominated by home computers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> +1. BASIC was used as a good entry level way to teach programming logic
> (just like LOGO and PILOT) back in my early days programming.
I wonder if that's the reason why it feels like the majority of programmers
is incompetent... ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David H. Burns <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> it was *very* useful at work and at play! And by it, I learned that even
> I can program,
No offence, but I think that's one of the big problems: So many people
*think* that they know how to program because they have written some simple
scripts with BASIC or whatever, and then clueless employers hire them based
solely on the fact that they *claim* they know how to program, after which
you get horrible programs which are huge, full of kludges, full of bugs and
basically unmaintainable.
You just have to read TheDailyWTF to see actual examples.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:29:04 +0200, andrel wrote:
> On 27-7-2009 21:57, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> +1
>
> seen this more often recently here. Yet another cross fertilization of
> the internet, I assume.
Yep, IIRC it comes from Slashdot's moderation system.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:24:20 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> +1. BASIC was used as a good entry level way to teach programming
>> logic (just like LOGO and PILOT) back in my early days programming.
>
> I wonder if that's the reason why it feels like the majority of
> programmers
> is incompetent... ;)
Nah, I think it's more that they went from there to machine language (not
assembler) without working through some intermediaries. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/27/09 11:56, Warp wrote:
> Even if we took goto as barely acceptable, its original implementation was
> very ascetic. AFAIK the original BASIC did not support named labels, but
> instead every line of code was numbered (by hand by the programmer), and
> gotos always jumped to a specified line number. AFAIK the numbering of each
> line was mandatory. Naturally this made it quite problematic to insert code
> between existing lines. While it was customary to number the lines in
> multiples of ten, this only gives the possibility of inserting 9 lines
> of code between any existing lines. If you run out of line numbers, you
> will have to start renumbering. And good luck trying not to break existing
> gotos if you start renumbering. (Some later BASIC text editors supported
> automatic renumbering, including all gotos, but naturally no such editors
> existed back then, when even having an interactive text editor in the first
> place was luxury.)
I wonder when such editors came around. Ever since I used BASIC, there
was the RENUM command. Of course, I _started_ using BASIC long, long
after its invention.
--
ASCII and ye shall receive.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
