Re: Rewrite BASIC language today?

On Apr 23, 2:37 am, "Tom Lake" <tl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:e3c1aad5-64df-4742-aa09-6bdbb947835c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > On Apr 22, 6:46 pm, "Tom Lake" <tl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> Remember, BASIC is only supposed to have two data types:
> >> Real numbers and strings.
>
> > ANSI BASIC may have only real numbers and strings but many other
> > BASICs have more data types (most have integer data types, or at least
> > variant types that may be integer).  BASIC in 2008 isn't "a" language,
> > it's a set of more-or-less incompatible dialects.
>
> That's exactly what's wrong, in my opinion and the opinion of the
creators
> of BASIC (see Back to BASIC).  BASIC should have been controlled right
from
> the start.  We wouldn't have had all the incompatible versions then.

Oh right.  Like ADA.  Rigorous specification as thick as
a phone book.  Required something like a DOD certification
before you could release a compiler.  Thus ADA is so much
more popular than BASIC...  Not.

What made BASIC popular was that it could be both implemented
and used by non-experts without really reading the manual
carefully.



IMHO. YMMV.
--
rhn A.T nicholson d.0.t C-o-M
 Chipmunk Basic: http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/basic