Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:51:30 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:



Yes, I just think that the BBC version pushed basic a lot closer to a
proper structured language than it ever been before.


Proper structured language? The absolutely wonderful thing about basic
was its total lack of structure. You didn't have to tell it what
variables you were using, or whether they were integers, floats or
double precision; you just went ahead and used them, doing whatever
maths you liked, and it would arrive at a suitable result. You could
write a quick and dirty programme in a few seconds, typing only what
was necessary for the function and not a whole load of other stuff
demanded by a compiler.

Sure for big, serious programmes it was deeply flawed, but those very
flaws made it perfect for what it was actually good at. I still keep a
copy of QB45 on all my computers for odd bits of maths - usually
recursive stuff - that Mathcad doesn't handle particularly well.

d


Remind me of this post Don next time you feel the need to point out that
as a professional in the audio field, you may know more than us amateurs.

Just for fun, just how do you do tail recusrsion in a non structured
lamguage again?

:-)


Now, now Nick! I'm not saying that structured languages are bad - I
use Visual C++ very often, but it is horses for courses. Basic has its
lack of structure, and sometimes that is exactly what you want. Don't
try and force everything into the same mould.

d


Oh, I agree Don, problem is if like me you have spent years working
with, interviewing, and eventually fixing the code produced by people
who thought learning basic was a good way of getting into programming.
You might develop a similar jaundiced view of basic and other fortran
derivitives.

Mind you, now its people starting with Java and not having a clue when
it comes to pointers and variable scoping.

--
Nick