🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4200@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> grobbins@ucsd.edu writes:
>Let's be a little more specific about what Basic is useful for on
>the Mac.  David had some hits and misses in his assessment, at least
>as far as the basic compiler I use, ZBasic, is concerned.
>
>Simply put, Basic really is the easiest way to get a fairly Mac-like
>application written.

   What about Macintosh Pascal?  Or V.I.P.?  There are other alternatives.

>the modern basics do allow for sufficient structure and breaking
>up of source into separate files.

   I'll have to look into this ZBasic.  I've only used MS-Basic.

>sufficient for thousands of tasks -- and once you quit the macho
>posturing about the power of C or the convenience and cleanliness
>of Pascal, getting programs written is what it's all about.

   Macho posturing has nothing to do with it.  It the power of Data
abstration that allows a programmer to concentrate on the job at had.
The purpose of abstration is not to be vague, but to produce a new
semantic level in which one can be absolutly precise  --- Misc. C.S. quote.

   Abstration also allows you to get programs written.  I can whip out a
pascal program just as fast as any basic programmer, but then we'll start to
make changes and additions, let's see the Basic handle that.

>allows non-programmers to solve simple problems, Basic is a good
>choice of language for _real_ programmers interested in creating
>a small to mid-size application of near-commercial quality.  And
>it doesn't require any study of Inside Mac.

  Oh boy I'd love to see some of these applications.  You mean the _real_
programmers at Ann Arbor should've used Basic and forgotten about the
toolbox.  for x := 1 to 1000000
             print ":-)"
          next x

-- 
David M. O'Rourke

Disclaimer: I don't represent the school.  All opinions are mine!