On Jan 10, 4:51 pm, "R.Nicholson" <rhnlo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 12:49 pm, Charmed Snark <sn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > David Williams expounded innews: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/BASICdocumentsthis
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.
>
> You might want to look at my implementation of Chipmunk Basic.
> It's a Basic interpreter with extensions for some 2nd
> and 3rd generation functionality (structure, objects, a hash
> database, matrix ops, plus graphics and such on Mac OS, etc.)
> But the idea was make sure that any extensions did not get
> in the way of still being able to enter an old fa****oned
> 1st generation Minimal Basic program from a circa 3 decade
> old magazine article into a plain text console and run it.
>
> http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/basic
>
> IMHO. YMMV.
> --
> rhn A.T nicholson d.0.t C-o-M
i have Chipmunk and i just the other day printed out several of the
command libraries and introductions... It looks very much like the
BASIC that i grew up on and am looking forward to throwing myself at
it very soon...???!!!
What i would really like; is for my MacBook to have a built in
programming language that's as easy to use as RPL ( The programming
language used by my HP48 programmable calculator ) It is the easiest
and most intuitive programming language i've ever seen...
Of course; it's a long way from the 'Plain English' programming
language that should have become available 20 years ago...
i think it's obvious that the computer manufacturers and software
companies have been working very hard to convince people that
programming is 'hard' and making the programming languages that are
available just about impossible to use, and very expensive to
boot...!!!
Just another facet of the world wide conspiracy to keep everyone
stupid, and computers as dysfunctional as possible.
It may be that 'they who control the world' genuinely believe that if
computers ever did become genuinely functional, or began to exhibit
AI, then all the doomsday forecasts that popular science fiction has
been predicting for generations, Really would come true.
It's really kind of hard to imagine that they Would NOT come true...
But still...
|
