David Williams expounded in news:1199933131.877.1199925523@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -> The Basic language probably reached it's peak of actual
> -> use when deployed on computers that only had text shells
> -> as their primary interface (Apple II, C64, BBC, PC-XT,
> -> etc.) A lot of kids learned to program on such, perhaps
> -> more than with the so-called "friendlier" GUI IDEs.
>
> Not just kids, either. A lot of older people learned to program with
> those early BASICs, and are still most comfortable with them.
>
> In about 1985, I appeared as a member of a panel of "experts" in a TV
> show about microcomputers. One of the questions we were asked was "What
> language will be the most used to program microcomputers five years
> from now?" (i.e. in about 1990). Other people on the panel answered
> with languages that were then trendy, such as Logo and Forth. I
> answered "BASIC, because so many people are already familiar with it."
> Time proved me right. The program was re-run for many years (and I kept
> getting royalty cheques). My answer stayed valid.
>
> dow
One of the things that kept happening to BASIC is that people kept
"improving it". Their heart was in the right place, but it usually got
improved for the wrong audience (from the neophytes pov).
One case in point: one of the first things that was done was that line
numbers were removed. Programmers hate them and I understand the urge to
remove them. But as soon as you remove them you make the interface more
complicated for non-programmers. You have to change the interface (add an
editor) or explain modes of operation etc. This just complicates the end-
user experience. It also becomes more complicated to explain (screen
shots become necessary). The end result is fewer people are willing to
take the initiative to overcome the hurdles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC
documents this first leap as making
BASIC more "structured and procedure oriented" (for "2nd generation
BASIC").
Then BASIC had to have objects, so along came "3rd generation BASIC".
By this point you have a complicated (to the neophyte) interface to the
language facility. It requires a deeper understanding to leverage it --
you need to at least know about existing objects and how to create and
use your own. So you have new concepts such as objects, editing,
compiling and so on.
This is ok for professionals but this leaves a class of people by the
sidelines wi****ng they could participate. So now they buy night school
courses to learn what people use to learn on their own.
There is another thing also:
Just because we have GUI in common use today (it seems "expected"), that
is not to say that we always must absolutely have it. GUI adds
complexity, which is something that just gets in the way of doing
something simple (like basic record keeping).
SOHO operators may only care about getting some basic record keeping and
re****ting done. Inventory, tax tracking, accounting, invoicing whatever.
They don't care if the interface is text if they can get the job done and
get it done quickly.
In fact, a lot of warehouse situations just use dumb terminals (even dept
stores). They are way cheaper, and very easy to keep going-- they don't
get viruses and don't need Windows updates.
Now having said that, GUI is still a must have for some things such as
graphs etc. The difficult part is coming up with software that can be
programmed to meet both needs without becoming too complicated.
Warren.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
