Re: Rewrite BASIC language today?

On May 10, 2:40 pm, ArarghMail805NOS...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 01:38:25 +0530, MC PRTK
>
> <prtk.uncenso...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Well, speaking as a complete newbie, who tries a little bit of
programming
> >on good ol' GWBASIC, i guess i'll hav to try programming in C to know
if
> >its better. As for the topic, I think BASIC, especially Microsoft
versions
> >like GWBASIC n QuickBasic are pretty much good.
>
> Yes, especially for when they were written.
>
> >But I think BASIC needs
> >some hardware control options, like controlling COM n USB ****ts,maybe
more
> >screen controls, like 640x480 n 800x600 graphics, RGB colors etc.
>
> I don't.
>
> What sup****t there is, is there because the underlying OS, DOS in this
> case, didn't provide enough.
>
> IMO, hardware sup****t should have been handled via IOCTLs to an open
> channel, not specicaized statements.

Completely useless for the target audience, Beginners,
who know and should have to know nothing about IOCTLs
and such.  What there should be are just simple and
almost obvious commands, such as
PRINT for printing on the ASR-33 teletype,
Beep and Sound for computers with speakers,
maybe Spin Left and Spin Right for computers with propellers.

Of course, that's neither extensible nor ****table; but other
languages are better architected for those purposes; no need
to make Basic as unusable for Beginners by adding the flaws
of those other languages.



IMHO. YMMV.
--
rhn A.T. nicholson d.0.t C-o-M