🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3306381F.4DD5@itctel.com> Bruce <brucec@itctel.com> writes:

>www.gdsoft.com/swag/swag.htmlNick Coons wrote:
>> > To some "advanced" means having the ability to do most anything the
>> > hardware is capable of without restriction.  When Pascal/C/C++ advocates
>> > claim their language as advanced this definition applies.
>>         That sounds like a good theory, as well as applicable.  I will say that
>> my definition of advanced is the one above, that it has the ability to
>> do most anything the hardware is capable of, and I still think that
>> QuickBASIC fits into this as being very advanced.

>one word: 

>POINTERS


I don't wish to jump into this particular bandwagon too much, but a couple of 
things.  First of all, Basic -is- a helluva lot like Pascal and C these days 
although it wasn't always.  Second, Pascal does have some unique and nice 
features like sets and subrange types which could be called "advanced."

However... all three are essentially ALGOL-derivative languages that have far 
more similarities than differences and these are easily pointed out.  Their 
expressive power (theoretic) has been proved to be "about the same."  Part of 
the issue comes down to personal preference.  The rest (majority..) comes down 
to "whatever the other 999,000 lines of priceless source-code in your shop are 
written in!!"  :-)