🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2843@polyslo.UUCP> dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke) writes:
>   I agree that in some cases Basic is a good choice.  

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.  With canned statements handling windows,
controls, text edit, and menus, it does free you from having to
worry about the details of the toolbox.  For people who haven't
learned the toolbox and really don't care to, but who also want to
create a respectable Mac application, it's the only choice.  And
the modern basics do allow for sufficient structure and breaking
up of source into separate files.

Yes, most Basic compilers are still relatively primitive in their
data handling compared with Pascal and C.  Yet Basic has proved
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.

As for the litmus test of Mac languages, toolbox support, it's true
that Basic's provisions are rather pathetic.  Yet the calls that
ZBasic allows (most of the important ones) are sufficient to handle
an enormous number of situations in which the canned features of
the language don't cut it, like keyboard scanning, file system
access, and resource use.

If someone wants to become a Mac programmer, his best bets are
certainly Lightspeed C or Pascal or Turbo Pascal, and for large
projects, MPW.  But just like HyperCard is a construction kit which
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.

Grobbins     grobbins@ucsd.edu