🚀 go-pugleaf

Anthony E. Siegman writes:

   This is one of those messages that will get me laughed at by ``real
   programmers'', but what the hell . . .

If you mean "language chauvanists" - so be it.  I still haven't seen
the language which is ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE. (if we do - can we
name it PANACEA ? :-)

   ... omitted: a very well written description of Microsoft BASIC as a
   programming environment ...

   The canonical statement heard from real Mac programmers seems to be
   something like , ``I spent 9 months reading all 5 volumes of Inside
   Macintosh, and struggling with MPW;  finally I got the picture and
   could start doing things.''  My experience with a class I'm
   teaching right now is that interested undergrads with ``high-school
   BASIC'' backgrounds can start producing simple but real Mac
   applications within a few _weeks_ of beginning programming on the Mac.

Excellent point.  I have, for the record, seen much the same sort of
effect when using TransSkel (a Mac/Lightspeed C skeleton run-time
library). 

   ... more omitted ...

   Finally, might just note that it's our experience -- don't want to push this
   claim too hard, however -- that a compiled BASIC number crunching program (a
   big simplex program, for example, or an FFT) runs every bit as fast in
   compiled BASIC as the same program in any of the standard Pascals.

Why not?  A number crunching segment of code, by its very nature, is
well suited for optimizing compilers - and the speed is far and away
mostly limited by the CPU and/or math processor - not the code.

Thank you - I intend to investigate Microsoft BASIC.
-- 
These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.  
John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, 9805 Scranton Rd., San Diego, CA 92121
...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp   jnp@calmasd.GE.COM   GEnie: J.PANTONE