1. Re: QBasic/BASIC programmers learning Euphoria
At 02:13 PM 5/28/98 -0400, Wally Riley wrote:
>I await your Basic-to-Euphoria article with bated breath. I have several
>QBasic programs that work, and I want to translate some of them into
>Euphoria. I'm having a lot of difficulty, trying to get past those GOTOs.
>
>Everybody seems to snipe at the various dialects of Basic, but nobody
>mentions the one great advantage of Basic: Programs written in Basic work,
>but in my experience programs written in other languages (including, so far,
>Euphoria) don't work. The only language that is better than Basic is
>assembly language, but I'm out of practice there and besides it's a drag.
--------------------------------------
I'm glad you said "in my experience"!
Actually, there are hundreds of Euphoria programs that work
just fine.
Sort of like my saying "These @$%$* Brazilians don't understand
anything I say!", is it not? Considering I only know 4 words of
Portuguese.
One of the reasons we all have problems with translation -
BASIC to whatever - is that BASIC code is not required to
be neat and well structured, and so seldom is.
Some languages encourage or enforce these things.
By saying this, I don't intend to start a language war.
I think Chinese is too complicated, but here are a few
(billion) Chinese that beg to differ.
Somehow they managed to learn. Enough said?
Regards,
Irv
