Basicly a basic BASIC 
Author Message
 Basicly a basic BASIC

Don't mind me, I have another thread start.  ;0)

Last night I downloaded a trial version of SwiftForth, so I'll start with
that since it has a manual with it (as far as I know).  So this isn't
another futile post.

I keep reading posts that list example code - and it's definately a very
compact language, but I'm finding the syntax to be a bit challenging.  I
don't have problems understanding it, if I knew what a particular word was
for then for the most part I would know what to do with it.

Well anyway, I'm learning it whether or not the syntax is sharp - but I have
a few questions concering BASIC.

Jeff, you said that when deciding on the instruction set for the MISC
processors, you ran a simulator with common forth programs to see which ones
were used the most.  Would it be just as efficient to design a processor
based on the BASIC language?  It would be a stripped down version - a basic
basic.

  -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
    http://www.*-*-*.com/       The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including  Dedicated  Binaries Servers ==-----



Sat, 04 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Basicly a basic BASIC


Quote:
> Would it be just as efficient to design a processor
> based on the BASIC language?

Forth is one of the languages based on the implementation of a
virtual machine.  Implementing the language on a given
processor begins with implemention the virtual machine.
Simply put, building a Forth based design is implementing
the virtual machine in hardware.

The Forth virtual machine is much simpler than the
architecture of real machines and therefore it can be
used as the model for a very simple real machine.
Chuck's designs are not meant to be as simple as
possible but rather as fast as possible given the
requirement that they be small and simple so that they
can match the target of low cost, low power, embedded
type applications.

BASIC has no virtual machine.  It is a sort of simplified
version of fortran. In a sense most machines are heavily
influenced by software of that type. But you could build
a simple more general purpose machine and build a simple
simple version of BASIC for it.  John Rible's QS Quicksand
mini-RISC design is a good example of a simple and small
general purpose design.

If you are looking at just the things in a very stripped
down version of BASIC then that would give you a smaller
set of things that the hardware has to do.  If you wanted
to design your own processor and run BASIC programs then
you would want to examine what goes into your BASIC and
what goes into your processor and how you implement
the language on your processor.

My experience is that BASIC is not as small as Forth and
not as powerful as Forth.  My first computer had 1K of
memory for a couple of years.  When I upgraded to 8K I
was able to run BASIC.  I liked BASIC because I had experience
with Fortran so I learned it in about 1/2 hour.

A few years later I found Forth.  I had done a lot of assembler
programming so Forth made sense to me.  Forth was so simple
that I felt I had learned it after about 1/2 hour.  Later
when I got better at Forth I could write and debug my
programs ten times faster in Forth than in the other
languages that I used and my programs were smaller and faster.

Years later when I was a consultant to Bank of America and
Pacific Bell I was often paid to write programs in BASIC
or 'C'.  I would often prototype and debug the applications
in Forth without anyone knowing it.  They wanted the programs
written in BASIC or 'C' and that was not a problem.  Using Forth
I would be so much more productive than they could imagine I
would easily get months ahead of schedule and have plenty of
time to provide a version in the language they wanted before
they thought it possible.

Unlike BASIC, Forth is inherently structured.  Forth also has no
training wheels so if you don't know what you are doing with
it or try to write wierd code you really can.  The father of
structured programming, Dyskstra, really disliked BASIC.  He
said that it "ruined" programmers who began by learning it
first.  He also said that COBOL was so bad that teaching it
should be criminalized.

--
Jeff Fox   www.value.net/~ut
www.UltraTechnology.com

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.



Sun, 05 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Basicly a basic BASIC

Quote:
> Unlike BASIC, Forth is inherently structured.  Forth also has no
> training wheels so if you don't know what you are doing with
> it or try to write wierd code you really can.  The father of
> structured programming, Dyskstra, really disliked BASIC.  He
> said that it "ruined" programmers who began by learning it
> first.  He also said that COBOL was so bad that teaching it
> should be criminalized.

Yea, I've only seen glimpses of COBOL and it doesn't look like a good
language at all.  Unfortunately, I'm taking a COBOL class next semester.
:0/

Well what does a stripped down BASIC have?

FOR...STEP...NEXT
IF...THEN...ELSE
WHILE...WEND
POKE, PEEK
GOSUB...RETURN
INPUT, PRINT
LOAD, SAVE

Did I leave something out (excluding GOTO)?

Something I have noticed throughout all the basics I've encountered so far -
they are *very* string oriented.  I think that is why they use to be so
popular - programs were text based, therefore being able to manipulate text
on the screen was the most important.

How about classiflying the different languages:

FORTRAN - math?
LISP - list processing?
COBOL - database and file management?
C, C++ - memory management?
BASIC - string manipulation?
FORTH - compact, fast... does it have a strong point?

  -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
   http://www.newsfeeds.com       The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including  Dedicated  Binaries Servers ==-----



Sun, 05 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Basicly a basic BASIC

Quote:

> [...]

> Something I have noticed throughout all the basics I've encountered > so far -
> they are *very* string oriented.  I think that is why they use to
> be so
> popular - programs were text based, therefore being able to
> manipulate text
> on the screen was the most important.

Yeah, how well I remember PEEKing at Microsoft BASIC's parameters
and disassembling what it did to learn how to POKE it into submission.

I was impressed when I learned how it did string garbage collection,
both positively and negatively.  If Bill Gates invented that
implementation independently as a {*filter*}, it was quite an accomplishment.
Does anybody know?  On the other hand, it was deeply flawed in the way
it mindlessly recursed, redoing the whole process for each garbage
string.  Guess the program had to be too small to do it right.  When
there was serious string handling, there would be ten minute delays,
with no indication of what was going on...

--David
 _  _________________________________________________________________
(_\(__
 _|__)  David N. Williams          Phone:  1-(734)-764-5236
__|___  University of Michigan     Fax:    1-(734)-763-2213

 \|     Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1120   Office: 3421 Randall Laboratory



Mon, 06 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Basicly a basic BASIC

Quote:

> > Unlike BASIC, Forth is inherently structured.  Forth also has no
> > training wheels so if you don't know what you are doing with
> > it or try to write wierd code you really can.  The father of
> > structured programming, Dyskstra, really disliked BASIC.  He
> > said that it "ruined" programmers who began by learning it
> > first.  He also said that COBOL was so bad that teaching it
> > should be criminalized.

> Yea, I've only seen glimpses of COBOL and it doesn't look like a good
> language at all.  Unfortunately, I'm taking a COBOL class next semester.
> :0/

> Well what does a stripped down BASIC have?

> FOR...STEP...NEXT
> IF...THEN...ELSE
> WHILE...WEND
> POKE, PEEK
> GOSUB...RETURN
> INPUT, PRINT
> LOAD, SAVE

> Did I leave something out (excluding GOTO)?

Some programs are hard to write without DATA statements. Some things
that BASIC leaves out are the ability to call subroutines by name, and
the ability to pass arguments to them. Names of more than one ot two
characters are nice, too. Would a stripped down BASIC allow them?

Quote:

> Something I have noticed throughout all the basics I've encountered so far -
> they are *very* string oriented.  I think that is why they use to be so
> popular - programs were text based, therefore being able to manipulate text
> on the screen was the most important.

> How about classiflying the different languages:

> FORTRAN - math?
> LISP - list processing?
> COBOL - database and file management?
> C, C++ - memory management?
> BASIC - string manipulation?
> FORTH - compact, fast... does it have a strong point?

You already named two. Interactivity is another. Forth's extensibility
is outstanding.
Jerry

--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can
get.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Mon, 06 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Basicly a basic BASIC

[Jeff:]

Quote:
>> Unlike BASIC, Forth is inherently structured.  Forth also has no
>> training wheels so if you don't know what you are doing with
>> it or try to write wierd code you really can.  The father of
>> structured programming, Dyskstra, really disliked BASIC.  He
>> said that it "ruined" programmers who began by learning it
>> first.  He also said that COBOL was so bad that teaching it
>> should be criminalized.

Rick:  

Quote:
> Yea, I've only seen glimpses of COBOL and it doesn't look like a good
> language at all.  Unfortunately, I'm taking a COBOL class next semester.
> :0/
> Well what does a stripped down BASIC have?
> FOR...STEP...NEXT              
> IF...THEN...ELSE
> WHILE...WEND
> POKE, PEEK
> GOSUB...RETURN
> INPUT, PRINT
> LOAD, SAVE
> Did I leave something out (excluding GOTO)?
> Something I have noticed throughout all the basics I've
> encountered so far - they are *very* string oriented.
> I think that is why they use to be so popular - programs
> were text based, therefore being able to manipulate text
> on the screen was the most important.
> How about classiflying the different languages:
> FORTRAN - math?
> LISP - list processing?
> COBOL - database and file management?
> C, C++ - memory management?
> BASIC - string manipulation?
> FORTH - compact, fast... does it have a strong point?  [...]

Not just embedded code and robotics but Artificial Intelligence:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/7256/mind-fpc.html PD AI.

The Y2K++ Future is looking for a few best-in-their-field coders
in state-of-the-art languages who remember how to code in Forth
or who can quickly pick up Forth and commence to port Mind.Forth
by slapping together a Web site with the first rudimentary "Mind"
loop or object that mimics what you get by link-clinking on Mind
at the above referenced archive of the Mind.Forth AI Source Code.

Will:

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a tide in the affairs of men,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Omitted, all the voyage of their life
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is bound in shallows and in miseries.



Mon, 06 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Basicly a basic BASIC

Quote:

> [...]
> When there was serious string handling, there would be ten minute
> delays, with no indication of what was going on...

David,

   I'll second that.  I remember using string arrays for sorting and
having the program take a long time.  After adding a counter, which was
output, I was amazed at how every now and then the program would
stop outputing the counter for quite a while, and then resume.

Quote:

> --David
>  _  _________________________________________________________________
> (_\(__
>  _|__)  David N. Williams          Phone:  1-(734)-764-5236
> __|___  University of Michigan     Fax:    1-(734)-763-2213

>  \|     Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1120   Office: 3421 Randall Laboratory

Steve Graham

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.



Mon, 06 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Basicly a basic BASIC


Quote:


> > > Unlike BASIC, Forth is inherently structured.  Forth also has no
> > > training wheels so if you don't know what you are doing with
> > > it or try to write wierd code you really can.  The father of
> > > structured programming, Dyskstra, really disliked BASIC.  He
> > > said that it "ruined" programmers who began by learning it
> > > first.  He also said that COBOL was so bad that teaching it
> > > should be criminalized.

> > Yea, I've only seen glimpses of COBOL and it doesn't look like a good
> > language at all.  Unfortunately, I'm taking a COBOL class next semester.
> > :0/

> > Well what does a stripped down BASIC have?

> > FOR...STEP...NEXT
> > IF...THEN...ELSE
> > WHILE...WEND
> > POKE, PEEK
> > GOSUB...RETURN
> > INPUT, PRINT
> > LOAD, SAVE

> > Did I leave something out (excluding GOTO)?

> Some programs are hard to write without DATA statements. Some things
> that BASIC leaves out are the ability to call subroutines by name, and
> the ability to pass arguments to them. Names of more than one ot two
> characters are nice, too. Would a stripped down BASIC allow them?

I had forgotten to add DATA...READ.  Being able to call a subroutine by name
is just implementation.  A Basic can be coded to do that.  In fact, you
could always design a Basic/Forth hybrid.  Passing arguments aren't needed
because in most Basic's I've worked with, all data is global.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> > Something I have noticed throughout all the basics I've encountered so
far -
> > they are *very* string oriented.  I think that is why they use to be so
> > popular - programs were text based, therefore being able to manipulate
text
> > on the screen was the most important.

> > How about classiflying the different languages:

> > FORTRAN - math?
> > LISP - list processing?
> > COBOL - database and file management?
> > C, C++ - memory management?
> > BASIC - string manipulation?
> > FORTH - compact, fast... does it have a strong point?

> You already named two. Interactivity is another. Forth's extensibility
> is outstanding.

> Jerry

> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can
> get.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
   http://www.newsfeeds.com       The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including  Dedicated  Binaries Servers ==-----


Tue, 07 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Basicly a basic BASIC



Quote:

> [Jeff:]
> >> Unlike BASIC, Forth is inherently structured.  Forth also has no
> >> training wheels so if you don't know what you are doing with
> >> it or try to write wierd code you really can.  The father of
> >> structured programming, Dyskstra, really disliked BASIC.  He
> >> said that it "ruined" programmers who began by learning it
> >> first.  He also said that COBOL was so bad that teaching it
> >> should be criminalized.

I don't think E.W. Dijkstra said such a thing.  I think he said that the way
programmers of that time were programming should be abolished and getting
adept at the method he proposed. I'm selling Dijkstra short if I claim that
essentially he does not like unrestricted global access to any part of the
program, whether being expressed in global variables or jumping through the
programming (goto considered harmfull) making the program only
understandable when you understand the whole state space (all variables,
temporarily or local, or globals, and all goto labels, subroutines etc.)
running in

He stated that programs with this kind of (non-)structure are difficult to
understand for others than the programmer who wrote it.  And therefore
difficult to repair and to maintain.  In essence he proposed a method along
the lines of a "divide-and-conquer" approach and not only on the /way/ to a
program text expressing the algorithm in some language, but in his opimion
the program text should reflect the divisions made during this development.
Annotating the program so anybody else could understand why these divisions
have been made would top it off.
I don't want to start the discussion of the formalism Dijkstra-method is
using is usefull or not.  But it is a recipe subdividing the state space in
manageable parts and , naturally fitting a computer, or a strategy where
constructs like the  if-fi statement (managing the state space
alternatives), do-od statement (managing parts of the state space involved
in the repitition)  and the scoping of variables, get a natural place.

Any explicit statement on COBOL or BASIC was said in this light, the
languages or not appropiate to /design/ algorithms in. But when you have an
algorithm designed in Dijkstra's way, there is nothing against
/implementing/ it in whatever language (well, socalled imperative languages
are most suitable for direct translation into)

So Dijkstra was entering a discussion on /designing/  algorithms and
program's not on /coding/  them.

Twan.

=======================================================================
Twan van der Schoot

The Netherlands

 "1. Die Welt is alles was der Fall ist" L. Wittgenstein.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PGP Fingerprint :   C801 B5FB 8B83 9DFA D854  DE59 2786 5E5D E088 7BB8
                    (Expires: Never)
=======================================================================



Wed, 08 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Basicly a basic BASIC

Quote:




> > > > Unlike BASIC, Forth is inherently structured.  Forth also has no
> > > > training wheels so if you don't know what you are doing with
> > > > it or try to write wierd code you really can.  The father of
> > > > structured programming, Dyskstra, really disliked BASIC.  He
> > > > said that it "ruined" programmers who began by learning it
> > > > first.  He also said that COBOL was so bad that teaching it
> > > > should be criminalized.

> > > Yea, I've only seen glimpses of COBOL and it doesn't look like a good
> > > language at all.  Unfortunately, I'm taking a COBOL class next semester.
> > > :0/

> > > Well what does a stripped down BASIC have?

> > > FOR...STEP...NEXT
> > > IF...THEN...ELSE
> > > WHILE...WEND
> > > POKE, PEEK
> > > GOSUB...RETURN
> > > INPUT, PRINT
> > > LOAD, SAVE

> > > Did I leave something out (excluding GOTO)?

> > Some programs are hard to write without DATA statements. Some things
> > that BASIC leaves out are the ability to call subroutines by name, and
> > the ability to pass arguments to them. Names of more than one ot two
> > characters are nice, too. Would a stripped down BASIC allow them?

> I had forgotten to add DATA...READ.  Being able to call a subroutine by name
> is just implementation.  A Basic can be coded to do that.  In fact, you
> could always design a Basic/Forth hybrid.  Passing arguments aren't needed
> because in most Basic's I've worked with, all data is global.

I'm aware of that. Having only global data is a grave flaw. Being able
to pass only by reference, not by value, compounds the flaw. These
grievous omissions are one of the reasons that Forth-to-Basic
conversions must be convoluted.
[snip]

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can
get.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Wed, 08 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Basicly a basic BASIC
[newsgroups trimmed]

Quote:

> So Dijkstra was entering a discussion on /designing/  algorithms and
> program's not on /coding/  them.

The problem is that noone designs algorithms when they learn to program.
They just code. If you have a programing language that restricts you how
to code your program (i.e. only global variables, only gotos as control
flow), you will design programs using this restricted mind space. This
spoils you, because opening up your mind will be very difficult.

This is IMHO one of the reasons why Forth is perceived to be a difficult
language. It allows you to play every trick in the book (even some that
are not in the book) to formulate a solution. On the other side, it has
little support for Fortran-style coding (no goto at all, cumbersome
global variables, and the screen-based Forth of the past even had severe
limits in the size of one word). Therefore, you have to use a number of
those tricks to get working code.

Well, you'd have to use those tricks anyway to produce efficent, correct
programs in a short time, but most people are just happy to produce
something not really efficient that sort of works in a short time
(wittness the popularity of Perl, where it is impossible by design to
write bug-free efficient programs for non-trivial problems).

Forth is like hammer, anvil, and forge. You can create everything with
these tools, but you need to create more specialized tools first
(because that's the only thing you can use the bare tools for). A linear
thinker can only create horse-shoes with that (and even that requires a
lot of learning how those tools interact and how to use them).

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/



Wed, 08 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Basicly a basic BASIC

Quote:




> > [Jeff:]
> > >> Unlike BASIC, Forth is inherently structured.  Forth also has no
> > >> training wheels so if you don't know what you are doing with
> > >> it or try to write wierd code you really can.  The father of
> > >> structured programming, Dyskstra, really disliked BASIC.  He
> > >> said that it "ruined" programmers who began by learning it
> > >> first.  He also said that COBOL was so bad that teaching it
> > >> should be criminalized.

> I don't think E.W. Dijkstra said such a thing.  I think he said that the way
> programmers of that time were programming should be abolished and getting

From EWD498  "How Do We Tell Truths that Might Hurt?"   18 June 1975

Collected in "Selected Writings on Computing: A Personal Perspective",
Dijkstra, Springer-Verlang  1982

<quote>

It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students
that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are
mentally mutilated beyond hope of recognition.

The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offence.

</quote>

He also (rightly) slams FORTRAN, PL/I, APL, and IBM amongst others.
Perhaps he needs to revisit this little paper and tell us if he
thinks things are any better.  (or at least come up with some more
uncomfortable truths.)

best
gr



Fri, 10 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Basicly a basic BASIC


Quote:





>> > [Jeff:]
>> > >> Unlike BASIC, Forth is inherently structured.  Forth also has no
>> > >> training wheels so if you don't know what you are doing with
>> > >> it or try to write wierd code you really can.  The father of
>> > >> structured programming, Dyskstra, really disliked BASIC.  He
>> > >> said that it "ruined" programmers who began by learning it
>> > >> first.  He also said that COBOL was so bad that teaching it
>> > >> should be criminalized.

>> I don't think E.W. Dijkstra said such a thing.  I think he said that the way
>> programmers of that time were programming should be abolished and getting

>From EWD498  "How Do We Tell Truths that Might Hurt?"   18 June 1975

>Collected in "Selected Writings on Computing: A Personal Perspective",
>Dijkstra, Springer-Verlang  1982

><quote>

>It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students
>that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are
>mentally mutilated beyond hope of recognition.

>The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be
>regarded as a criminal offence.

></quote>

>He also (rightly) slams FORTRAN, PL/I, APL, and IBM amongst others.
>Perhaps he needs to revisit this little paper and tell us if he
>thinks things are any better.  (or at least come up with some more
>uncomfortable truths.)

Anything that involves mans thought processes then removes any ideal of
external truth.

E.W. Dijkstra can only give his humble opinion and others should not be
wary or worried by it.  Only his followers need tow the line "as his is
the way and the way is narrow."

Sounds too familiar to me! :-)

Richard.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a visit to Hill House from the original horror film "The Haunting" look up
         Ettington Park Hotel near Stratford Upon Avon.
"No one comes any nearer than town!...In the dark!.....In the night!"



Sat, 11 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Basicly a basic BASIC
Hi Group,

Well I don't want to catch you on a single word, but he distinguished the
teaching of programming and designing algorithms /in/  these languages from
programming /into/ these languages. And Dijkstra opposes against the use of
forementioned language to program *in*.  In that sense I think we don't have
any dispute.  As far as I know he hasn't explicitly opposed against /coding
into/ these languages.

In the time Dijkstra developed his idea's on programming, programming was
considered to be a high-level activity, it was the activity of designing
algorithms for machines even designing the architecture of the software and
operating system you needed to run your program. Coding, on the other hand
was the translation of these algorithms into a machine readable format.  If
you agree to understand "programming" in this sense, I think we agree.

On the issue whether Dijkstra thinks things are better now, you can ask him,
as far as I know he has an academic position at utexas.

But my guess is that in his eyes things did not improve, and I have to
concur with him.  Take a look at his Guarded Command Language (together with
the extensions proposed in the works of Dijkstra adepts you'll find also
"language"  support for data structures, procedure calls and concurrency
constructs together with "Weakest Predicate Transformer" sematics) and
you'll probably agree that no modern, imperative, programming language is in
essence different from GCL.

The main discussion he raised was not really linked to programming
languages, but to programming constructs obfuscating the understanding a
program. If a programming language supports such a construct, he is against
it.  Of course understanding a program as he sees it.

{side step}
By the way, his method of programming requires that a programming language
can be combined in a textual fashion  with
the annotations and specifications one uses to derive the program from.
Specifications and annontations are  expressed in a formal logic language.
The main mechanism for the "interaction" between the annotations and program
*text*, is textual substitution.  This makes a Dijkstra programming exercise
a game with formal symbols, rather then instructing a machine.  To make this
work the logical language, in which you expres the specification of a (sub)
program, and the programming language, in which you expres the machine
actions, must be structurally similar.

A little bit contrived and somehow exceptional example.  If a specification
formally states that some condition, C, should hold for all elements in an
array int A[i, 0<=i<N], N>0 , the logical expression stating this could be:

            Q: (A i: 0<=i<N: C(A[i]))

Then, using his -formal- program development approach will result in
something like this, using the subprogram T which makes C true for A[i]:

        int x;
         { invariant P: (A i: 0<=i<x: C(A[i]))}
         x :=0;
        { P is valid}
        do x<N ->
                T
                { P and C(A[x]) }
                x := x+1;
                { P }
        od
        { (A i: 0<=i<N: C(A[i])}

Don't mind the meaning of every detail, but note that the bound variable, i,
in the text of Q somehow maps onto the program (loop) variable x.  This
means that there is a structural similarity between the program text and the
textual structure of Q.  It is in this sense that the logical language of
the specifications and annotations have an intimate mutual relationship with
the program text.  And this, in IMHO, calls for the disgust Dijkstra shows
for programming in the other languages, because these languages don't allow
a neat formal mathematical theory.
{end of side step}

rgrds

Twan.
(not intending to start a "religious" dispute on the appropiateness of
programming languages ;-)


Quote:





> > > [Jeff:]
> > > >> Unlike BASIC, Forth is inherently structured.  Forth also has no
> > > >> training wheels so if you don't know what you are doing with
> > > >> it or try to write wierd code you really can.  The father of
> > > >> structured programming, Dyskstra, really disliked BASIC.  He
> > > >> said that it "ruined" programmers who began by learning it
> > > >> first.  He also said that COBOL was so bad that teaching it
> > > >> should be criminalized.

> > I don't think E.W. Dijkstra said such a thing.  I think he said that the
way
> > programmers of that time were programming should be abolished and
getting

> From EWD498  "How Do We Tell Truths that Might Hurt?"   18 June 1975

> Collected in "Selected Writings on Computing: A Personal Perspective",
> Dijkstra, Springer-Verlang  1982

> <quote>

> It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students
> that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are
> mentally mutilated beyond hope of recognition.

> The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be
> regarded as a criminal offence.

> </quote>

> He also (rightly) slams FORTRAN, PL/I, APL, and IBM amongst others.
> Perhaps he needs to revisit this little paper and tell us if he
> thinks things are any better.  (or at least come up with some more
> uncomfortable truths.)

> best
> gr



Sun, 12 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Basicly a basic BASIC

Quote:
> > FORTRAN - math?

Well - as one of the oldest languages, fortan has got a lot of
experience in its libraries and compilers. Specially for parallel
computing.

Quote:
> > LISP - list processing?

Dynamic structures ...

Quote:
> > COBOL - database and file management?

Don't know much about COBOL, but as far as I know has very good
libraries for buissness programming.

Quote:
> > C, C++ - memory management?

C is probably the best abstraction from assembler there is. You have
most of the advantages from programming assembler, but still your code
is not CPU-dependent.

Quote:
> > BASIC - string manipulation?

Easy it learn, easy to implement.

Quote:
> > FORTH - compact, fast... does it have a strong point?  [...]

Absolutely minimalistic and incredibly powerful. There is not other
language where the difference between compilation and interpretation
is so small. THE language if it comes to self-modification or to
bootstraping a system.

I think that most languages are good in one field, not because of the
language design, but of the libraries available.

MfG,
Bernd

--
[ BERND SCHOELLER                    The Net interprets censorship as damage, ]

[ http://www.cs.tu-berlin.de/~schoelle                        - John Gilmour ]



Sun, 12 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 25 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. Basicly a basic BASIC

2. Device Driver: from Apple III BASIC to IBM BASIC

3. Please help Visual Basic Programer with simple read/write text file routine---Real Basic 2.1

4. Visual basic or real basic?

5. UNIBASIC, PIC BASIC or Business Basic

6. Power Basic CC vs Power Basic for DOS

7. old BASIC to REAL BASIC ?

8. Switching to Real Basic from Visual Basic?

9. LabView course basic 1 and basic 2

10. Basic and Basic->C converter wanted

11. BASIC VS. TURBO-BASIC

12. BASIC to C translator wanted (or BASIC interpreter)

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software