Re: Why use Basic at all? (was Re: BASIC with built-in matrix functions?)

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:32:52 -0700, "news@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
<news@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Aug 22, 8:22 pm, "R.Nicholson" <rhnlo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> I can think of a few reasons (which may or may not be good ones).
>>
>> Ease of learning:
>> Concreteness:
>> Ease of implementation:
>> History:
>> Experimental programming tool:
>
>Arguably you left out the most im****tant one - Procedural.
>
>One of my major customers for BBC BASIC here in the UK is ****tsmouth
>University who use it in an introductory programming unit for their
>Engineering Foundation course.  They chose BASIC specifically because
>they wanted to teach a Procedural language rather than an Object
>Orientated language like Java or C#.

I find that quite interesting - and not that I disagree with their choice
or
motivation.  As an engineering undergraduate, I started programming in the
60's
on punchcard-based machines using Fortran-II, and switched to Basic for
personal
computing as soon as personal computing appeared.

Recently I have been ****ting many QuickBasic 4.5 applications to VB. 
Because of
the legacy environment that they must run in, that means VB-DOS.  The
transition
in thinking/processing from procedural to event-driven/O-O is not to be
underestimated, and I wonder how their engineering students will make that
transition.  I also wonder WHEN - in the university or out there in the
industry.

>The feedback I received from them this year was "You will be delighted
>to know that using your BBC BASIC to introduce programming was a great
>success" so that gives the lie to anybody who says that BASIC is an
>obsolete language, or suitable only for hobbyists.

It certainly IS suitable for hobbyists and anyone else who wants to whip
up a
quick'n'dirty program in five minutes.