🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <330B0798.7872@airmail.net>, "Alan M. Evans" <look4me@airmail.net> wrote:

[some things I've snipped here]

>What I _have_ been saying is that Pascal programmers and BASIC
>programmers approach similar programming problems differently. If a
>translator were made to bridge the gap, it would likely not produce good
>code even if the converted code did work properly, which is also
>unlikely.

I usually shy away from the BASIC-versus-the-world threads because, having 
programmed in more than 20 variants of BASIC, I know that a lot of this 
arguing is rather clueless, meaning no disrespect to anyone who participates 
in these threads.

BASIC runs in over 1,000 implementations -- over 2,000 by some estimates.  
It's been used on mainframes, minis, and PCs.  PC BASICs are legion, but 
professional application development in BASIC was started in the late 1960s 
and it matured in the mini-computer industry in the 1970s.  The trend 
continued into the 1980s with multiple conversions from proprietary operating 
systems to Unix and Novell environments.

Most people think Microsoft made BASIC a major language, and nothing is 
farther from the truth.  If we look at the Visual BASIC market as it is today, 
it probably does account for about half the BASIC programmers and applications 
in the world.  Maybe it's up to 60%, but I'm doubtful on that score.  
Microsoft just hasn't put the punch into BASIC that it has into its other 
products (and I'm well aware that there are still over 1,000,000 Visual BASIC 
programmers).

There are BASIC implementations which run dams and blast furnaces; BASICs 
which are being used to code compilers and sophisticated database systems.  
BASICs have differentiated into graphical tools, such as MapBASIC and 
ImageBASIC (I may have this last name wrong).

BASIC, BASIC, BASIC.  It's the second most commonly used programming language 
*family* in the world.  The only one that still beats it out is COBOL, believe 
it or not.

That doesn't mean that BASIC is better than all other programming languages, 
but it sure means that if you consider BASIC to be simple, "hard-to-parse" 
(where did that come from?), or unsophisticated, then you need to stop 
considering BASIC by the standards of 10-year-old PC BASICs and look at what 
the more powerful versions are capable of -- the ones that are used throughout 
the world by large companies and small, companies like Coca-Cola, Citibank, 
Genuine Parts Company (NAPA Auto Parts, any one?), Marriott Hotels, Turner 
Broadcasting, and many others.  Surely you folks have heard of these 
companies?

Well, that doesn't mean they all do ALL their programming in BASIC.  
Absolutely not!  But they do use it and most still use it widely.

You want object oriented programming in BASIC?  It's there.  You just have to 
know which BASICs support it, but it's been there for years.

You want typed constants in BASIC?  They're there.  You just have to know 
which BASICs support them.  The fact someone Commodore 64 doesn't do something 
doesn't mean BASIC hasn't been able to do it for years.

There is no "BASIC" in the sense that people seem to think there is.

Maybe it's time someone wrote a BASIC Myths FAQ or something.  Every two weeks 
someone starts up with the "BASIC sucks" or "BASIC is better than..." or 
'Language X is Better Than BASIC" threads.

Is there some Usenet manual for programmers that says when you first get 
online you will become embroiled in a thread that compares BASIC to some other 
language?

I must have missed that in BASIC training.

Peace, love, friendship, and good coding to all.


  ++   ++   "Well Samwise: What do you think of the elves now?"
  ||\ /||                 --fbaggins@mid.earth.com
  || v ||ichael Martinez                    (mmartin@basis.com)
  ++   ++------------------------------------------------------