On Jan 9, 4:42 pm, The Translucent Amoebae <transamoe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On Jan 7, 5:46 am, Charmed Snark <sn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The Translucent Amoebae expounded
innews:ce3a28f8-9b51-439b-b00d-a994ac38e913@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > On Jan 4, 10:27 am, Charmed Snark <sn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> The Translucent Amoebae expounded in news:0d8a898d-ec7c-4a96-a42a-
> > >> 9e4fc59f4...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > >> > On Jan 3, 10:53 am, Charmed Snark <sn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> >> This is a new Open Sourced BASIC interpreter,
> > >> >> using the Berkeley DB, focused on:
>
> > >> >> 1. Simple to program (for non-programmers)
> > >> >> 2. Powerful database statements
> > >> >> 3. UNIX shell friendly
> > >> ...
> > >> > The moment that i read: "Unix Shell Friendly", i knew that it was
> > >> > NOT going to be AT ALL Friendly.
>
> > >> So you'd prefer it to be UNIX UN-friendly? ;-)
>
> > > My point was; If they have to mention it, it's going to be trouble.
>
> > Not necessarily. The fact that a manufacturer of automobiles only
> > warrantees the driver train for x amount of miles, doesn't imply that
it
> > will fail at mile x+1, or x + a few. Or the fact that they mention it,
> > doesn't mean the drive train is a problem (which is the point you're
> > making).
>
> > If you ever worked with MICOS BASIC (from which this interpreter was
> > inspired), then you know that it was not only non-unix friendly, but
if
> > it (or an emulator) were ever made available for Windows/DOS, it would
> > also be unfriendly there. So this is a distingui****ng point from MICOS
> > BASIC and bears mentioning.
>
> > Yes, I mentioned UNIX, but it could equally apply to the DOS prompt,
> > which is in itself a form of a shell though inferior in functionality.
> > One place where the "UNIX" applies is in the PRINT statements. This
> > BASIC interpreter can print to standard output or standard error by
> > suitable use of a file unit number within the program (these are not
the
> > only possibilities, but let's keep this simple). Some BASICs are
unable
> > to allow that kind of linkage between file units in the program and
file
> > units within the shell.
>
> > Of course, the use of this feature is optional: if you find it
> > complicated, you do not have to make use of it. Just do a "normal"
> > print.
>
> > Warren.
>
> > --
> > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
>
> You're 'Explanation' to make it sound simple, had quite the opposite
> effect.
>
> At one time, not so very long ago, i believed, Because i WANTED TO
> BELIEVE--
> That Unix/Linux were The Next Big Thing, that they were going to
> revolutionize the computer universe, and then i was exposed to Unix
> and Linux, and now i no longer believe that.
>
> What i now believe; Is that Unix/Linux are Hacker Tools, that may only
> be used by Geeks & Geekettes in dank basements or drafty attics.
>
> It may be that you genuinely, in your heart of hearts, believe, or
> believe that you KNOW that this BASIC Dealie you're pu****ng is a
> Stand alone program, but i am also sure that if i were to download it,
> or even pay for it, i would never get it running.
> i would need to know ( based on real world experiences ) all kinds of
> things that are not included in your do***entation, and further, if i
> tried to make inquiries about the problems that i was having, you
> would have no idea what i was talking about... Anymore than trying to
> talk to a fish about water.
>
> ( if you don't get that last joke, then i've proved my point. )
Sounds simple to me - the language maps file channel #'s to external
files, in this case such as stdout or stderr.
Reminds me of Super XB for the TI-99. The Trace facility allowed you
to open file #123, then all trace output went to the device you
specified. Much better than all the "trace" clutter on your pretty
graphics screen...
With this, you could even use PRINT #123 statements for debug purposes
(which allowed you to output WHERE you were in the program in the
trace output).
|
