On Aug 22, 2:31 pm, Happy Trails <nom...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand your point here, but I think we may differ
> in our ideas of where the basic that we each know and love is/was
> positioned in the world of software.
>
> I hold the version of Basic to which I referred earlier in the highest
> regard in terms of a programmer productivity tool that could be used
> to create the most intricate work I have ever done, with a speed of
> execution of the compiled result equal to the best C programs of the
> day, without the potential bugged-ness of C.
What you point out is more of an IDE and compiler quality
issue, rather than anything related to the Basic programming
language itself. Most popular languages have their share
of good and bad programming environments.
Or are you saying that you be programming in Java
or Cobol now if an IDE for it was even better than
PDS?
> You seem to promote it for its simplicity.
I was talking about the Basic programming language,
not any particular development environment or
compiler. A number of the most popular implementations
of Basic weren't even compiled for that matter.
I'm more interested in the use and popularity of
the Basic programming language itself, not whether
someone wrote a good IDE for it or Java or a highly
optimized Fortran compiler or whatever.
IMHO. YMMV.
--
rhn A.T nicholson d.0.t C-o-M
|
