1. look inside. this is outrageous.
- Posted by Matt Z Nunyabidness <matt1278 at JUNO.COM>
Oct 23, 1998
-
Last edited Oct 24, 1998
<snip from basic.doc>
- because BASIC is an old "ad-hoc" language that carries 25 years of
redundant, excess baggage along with it
<end snip>
And Rob Craig calls THAT a reason to write a prog in Euphoria instead of
BASIC??? What's the matter with programming in a language with a history,
respect, and fans???
It's kinda and HONOR to write in a language with a history. There's
nothing wrong with the other 11 reasons, but this 9th reason is
totally...outrageous! What do you guys have against 25 years of
breakthroughs, inventions, ideas, and mostly GAMES behind it? How many
BASIC stuff can you find in file libraries? Thousands!!! And how about
Euphoria? Not much that i've seen lately except on those Eu web pages.
<another snip>
- because there is no effective standard for BASIC across different
machines
and there probably never will be -- i totally agree on this one, Rob
- because QBasic provides no built-in functions for using a mouse -- But
you have to write dumb old machine code to use the mouse in QB!
- because QBasic does not support SVGA graphics -- ooo. SVGA graphics in
QB. Forget it.
<end snip>
now those are absolutely TERRIFIC.
<snip>
- because Euphoria is 10 to 20 times faster than Microsoft QBasic
(see demo\bench)
<end snip>
Ya, but QuickBASIC is the king of ALL BASICs!
<snip>
- because Euphoria checks for uninitialized variables - BASIC just
quietly sets them to 0
<end snip>
yup, that could be a problem...
_________________
"When it comes to programming languages, Eu™ by RDS is a cut above" -
Matt1278 and SoftPrez
Webbers: <A HREF="mailto:softprez at juno.com">softprez at juno.com</A>,
president of SoftCo.® Uh, no slogan at the moment™
Seeya next week!
2. Re: look inside. this is outrageous.
Maybe I'm being responding on this, but I couldnt resist..
><snip from basic.doc>
>- because BASIC is an old "ad-hoc" language that carries 25 years of
> redundant, excess baggage along with it
><end snip>
>
>And Rob Craig calls THAT a reason to write a prog in Euphoria instead of
>BASIC??? What's the matter with programming in a language with a history,
>respect, and fans???
Ok, Matt. Am I being short-minded when I say this about the fans of Basic:
* they got their first basic compiler/interpreter with their system, or
somewhere for free.
* basic is the first programming language they learn.
* they have no expierence with any other programming language
* no company will ever hire them
* they have no clue what flow-charting is
The 'fans' of basic, IMHO, are completely incapable of judging the value of
basic.
Next, 'respect'. Do lie when I say this about the general opinion towards
basic:
* there is no such thing as software written in basic (except VB) that will
actually sell.
* every programming language out there, compares itself to basic, and finds
an excuse for its existing.
* every one who has a college degree in programming/IT dislikes basic
* "basic sux" is tought
In other words, companies, professional programmers, programming language
developpers do not respect basic at all. There is no respect for basic in
the IT.
Lastly, 'history'. Should I be more optimistic when I say its history leads
to:
* 10000's of different flavours, QBasic code wont run under PowerBasic, and
forget to try any of them out on an old Commondore. It wont work. Every
compiler/interpreter uses a (slightly) different flavour.
* All kind of tricks, routines, and statements are there for compatibility.
Take for example the alternative IO approuch you can take with bload and
bsave.
* Basic allows a lot, but yet its tolerance differs from
compiler/interpreter to compiler/interpreter.
* Structural improvements could have been made, however you need to maining
some kind of compatibility.
In other words, like Windows goes to a lot of trouble and eats up a lot of
system resources, just to be able to stil support dos programs, the same
happens with new basic interpreters and compilers.
>It's kinda and HONOR to write in a language with a history. There's
>nothing wrong with the other 11 reasons, but this 9th reason is
>totally...outrageous! What do you guys have against 25 years of
>breakthroughs, inventions, ideas, and mostly GAMES behind it? How many
>BASIC stuff can you find in file libraries? Thousands!!! And how about
>Euphoria? Not much that i've seen lately except on those Eu web pages.
And this is due to the history of basic ?
Indeed, it is. Every sadistic professional programmer tells the young
hobbiests: you should try basic, its a good *learning language* they say,
while its actually a case of, I had to go through that hell, so do you..
>>- because Euphoria is 10 to 20 times faster than Microsoft QBasic
>> (see demo\bench)
>Ya, but QuickBASIC is the king of ALL BASICs!
Well, actually PowerBasic, for example, is much faster than Euphoria.
Which is not suprisingly.
Considering the lack of flexibility and freedom at run-time, something like
basic could be compiled very tidy.
Ralf
