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

In article <qdmpc3df0tsa960gaton4n5g4vm6kd2ked@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, budgie
<me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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.

Why would *most* engineers want to write more complex programs?  Or do 
we have a semantic problem here?  I notice (in Dilbert, for example :) 
that the term "engineer" as used in the USA seems to at least 
*include* software developers.  Here in Oz (and perhaps also in 
Pomerania?) I don't think "software developer" would even be 
considered a branch of "engineering".  

So, my view would be that most engineers would only need a reliable, 
easy to use language for writing their own ad hoc programs to solve 
specific problems from time to time and perhaps only ever used once.  

>>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.

Cheers, Phred.

-- 
ppnerkDELETE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]