Re: Rewrite BASIC language today?

Hi,

INC reminds me of LDIR.
LoaD the HL registers and Immediately Repeate Incrementing the Ac***ulator

until C register is SetFlag
Your talking assembly.

BASIC was made for the Non technicians like me.

I still have some of those BYTES magazines. Yeah, still trying to figure
out 
what those programmers did.
But at least I can read them. Some listings of today contain only tokens
and 
other mysterious things. I won't
save these "modern" listings for the comming 20 years, trying to read
them.

BASIC should be easy and simple but good enough to (fully) discover
Windows.
Maybe BASIC can inspire the young generation as it did with mine.
There is no need for speed. There is no need for OOP if that means that
more 
people
can work on one same large program. BASIC was there for educational and 
recreational reasons too.
So for the individual excitement.

You know what boosted Liberty BASIC? It was easy enough to write books
about 
it. Some schools
started teaching Liberty BASIC. I'm giving a 24 parts "workshop" on 
Programming Windows
with LibertyBASIC. And I'm no teacher at all.

Gordon.



>>> HOW about INC and DEC?
>>> Instead of LET variable = variable + (or -) number.
>>> It doesn't alter the capabilities but some might claim that it makes
the 
>>> listings more readable.
>>
>> Do you mean leaving the optional LET out?
>> What's the need of INC or ++
>> I learned BASIC: A = A + 1
>>
>>> What I am thinking is what makes a perfect BASIC?
>>> I would suggest one which enables an easy learning curve, a reasonable

>>> capability and listings that can commonly be shared amongst a
community 
>>> without the need of an expert translation.
>>
>> Ok, no A% and B# and so on. No lot's of separate listings containing 
>> procs and functions,
>> but just everything in one listing.
>>
>> Do you mean you should be able to read the listing fully with any 
>> wordprocessor?
>> No need to install the language first? Yeah...
>> Do you wish to read them like we could read those listings from
magazines 
>> like
>> BYTE or CREATIVE?
>>> Too much to expect?
>> No, this is what the consumer wants. Try Just BASIC or Liberty BASIC.
>>
>> Gordon.
>>
>
> ...............
>> 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=A+1 and similar were
relpaced
> by INC A, DEC B, or INC A,2  or DEC A,3 etc.
>
> Does it in any way help to make a BASIC listing more language-like
rather 
> than a
> mathematical proof?
>
>> Do you mean you should be able to read the listing fully with any 
>> wordprocessor?
>
> Not really. Only if it moves the language nearer to potential beginners 
> who might
> otherwise be put off.
>
>> Do you wish to read them like we could read those listings from
magazines 
>> like
>> BYTE or CREATIVE?
>
> I wasn't quite thinking this, but I can remember some BASIC listings
which
> were a poor advert for their useage.
>
> Each BASIC language variant would seem to have a community of users and
a 
> common source for
> listings or files containing listings. If these are hard to understand
and 
> cannot easily be used and
> modified, because they contain specialised "tweaks" and other
non-standard 
> inclusions, then
> this would go against the idea of BASIC.
> My reason for the subject title.
>
> jj