Re: Rewrite BASIC language today?

On Apr 26, 9:49=A0am, "jj" <in...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > What's the need of INC or ++
>
> RE:"++"
> There is no need to introduce a failing of another language to prove
> your point. I am asking for your opinion rather than stating mine.
>
> e.g Would a listing look clearer if those A=3DA+1 and similar were
relpace=
d
> by INC A, DEC B, or INC A,2 =A0or DEC A,3 etc.
>
> Does it in any way help to make a BASIC listing more language-like
rather
> than a
> mathematical proof?

Certainly INC and DEC are an interesting example.  On the pro side
these are very simple additions, especially if you don't have use
extended form INC var, value.  On the con side they add noise to the
language that is unnecessary.  The expression a =3D a + 1 is extremely
simple and relies on core language syntax that the programmer uses for
other things.  No new syntax is necessary so why do we need INC or
DEC?

If you are going to add a new feature to the language, it should be a
big win.

Some thoughts about addiing a new feature:

-It should look like BASIC so that the language doesn't become a hodge
podge of syntax
-It should be high level and easy to understand
-It should add capability that isn't already there (does INC?)
-If should be useful to most programmers (80/20 rule)

If a new feature causes a change in coding style that results in a
program that is not recognizably written in BASIC, then is that
program still written in BASIC?  There is a sometimes blurry line that
gets crossed when doing programming language work.  I know I've
tripped over that line myself.  It is challenging to extend a language
while preserving what is essential about that language.  No doubt
about it.  Once you've added new features to a language it can be hard
to take them out.

-Carl Gundel, author of Liberty BASIC
http://www.libertybasic.com