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

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:14:53 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

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.

Ever tried COBOL? Strangest thing ever. A simple addition would go:

Add A to B giving C

mind boggling yet? Programming for retards.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:43:52 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:

Basic has its
lack of structure, and sometimes that is exactly what you want. Don't
try and force everything into the same mould.
I rather liked the Procedures in BBC Basic.

DEFPROC ! (define procedure)

Graham

I don't know BBC basic. How is that different to defining a function
in Quickbasic?


DEFPROC and DEFFN was in BBC Basic before the equivalent appeared in
QuickBasic. There was also the concept of local scoping of variables,
which gave rise to some nifty recursive programming.

You could easily write a whole program without muttering the command
'GOTO', and the inline 6502 assembler was pretty handy...

Comparing the programming and graphics abilities of a £2000 IBM PC-XT
and a £400 BBC Micro around 1981 was a bit a wonder why the IBM was so
expensive. The BBC held it's own for many small businesses for quite a
while....

--
Adrian C

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:37:50 +0000, Adrian C
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:43:52 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:

Basic has its
lack of structure, and sometimes that is exactly what you want. Don't
try and force everything into the same mould.
I rather liked the Procedures in BBC Basic.

DEFPROC ! (define procedure)

Graham

I don't know BBC basic. How is that different to defining a function
in Quickbasic?


DEFPROC and DEFFN was in BBC Basic before the equivalent appeared in
QuickBasic. There was also the concept of local scoping of variables,
which gave rise to some nifty recursive programming.

You could easily write a whole program without muttering the command
'GOTO', and the inline 6502 assembler was pretty handy...

Comparing the programming and graphics abilities of a £2000 IBM PC-XT
and a £400 BBC Micro around 1981 was a bit a wonder why the IBM was so
expensive. The BBC held it's own for many small businesses for quite a
while....

Never could understand the huge phobia about GOTO. Seems a perfectly
reasonable sort of command to me, particularly when combined with a
conditional.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:



Ever tried COBOL? Strangest thing ever. A simple addition would go:

Oh, yes.


Add A to B giving C

mind boggling yet? Programming for retards.


Worst that that, it was for managers.

--
Nick

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:37:50 +0000, Adrian C
wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:43:52 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


Basic has its
lack of structure, and sometimes that is exactly what you want. Don't
try and force everything into the same mould.

I rather liked the Procedures in BBC Basic.

DEFPROC ! (define procedure)

Graham

I don't know BBC basic. How is that different to defining a function
in Quickbasic?


DEFPROC and DEFFN was in BBC Basic before the equivalent appeared in
QuickBasic. There was also the concept of local scoping of variables,
which gave rise to some nifty recursive programming.

You could easily write a whole program without muttering the command
'GOTO', and the inline 6502 assembler was pretty handy...

Comparing the programming and graphics abilities of a £2000 IBM PC-XT
and a £400 BBC Micro around 1981 was a bit a wonder why the IBM was so
expensive. The BBC held it's own for many small businesses for quite a
while....


Never could understand the huge phobia about GOTO. Seems a perfectly
reasonable sort of command to me, particularly when combined with a
conditional.

d


Just try and debug someones code that used loads of them and you will
get the idea.

IMHO, there was nothing inherently wrong with a goto, despite the more
rabid views of some at the time. But the problem is when they are used
instead of properly designing and structuring code.

It was the "start at line 10", then just code, and if it seems to work,
ship it method.

Having said that, I do use them myself at times for "it all went wrong,
go to the end and exit" type things. And even worst, I have been known
to use longjmp() :-)

Then again, I was paid to write assembler for some years, sowhat do I know.

Anyway, this is a digression on a off topic posting :-)

--
Nick

Don Pearce wrote:

Never could understand the huge phobia about GOTO. Seems a perfectly
reasonable sort of command to me, particularly when combined with a
conditional.


The incorrect use of GOTO gave rise to the generation of unstructured
Spaghetti code when left in the hands of a beginner. However, with
experience, most then learn if a GOTO is to be used then some clarity
must be included (comments, block formatting) if someone later is to
have any hope of understanding what the program is doing...

And in assembler language, where GOTO like commands are the norm - there
is even more onus on the coder to explain what's going on.

The Anti-GOTO Critics didn't think people would follow the above common
sense so the use of GOTO has been deamed a cardinal Sin. FWIW I still
have the scars and very rarely use it in VB.

BTW My favorite snippet of BBC machine code found in the OS 1.2 ROM at
Hex location D0D0 explains a part of animal evolution! How cool is that?

D0D0 JSR D1ED

--
Adrian C

Don Pearce wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

Basic has its
lack of structure, and sometimes that is exactly what you want. Don't
try and force everything into the same mould.

I rather liked the Procedures in BBC Basic.

DEFPROC ! (define procedure)


I don't know BBC basic. How is that different to defining a function
in Quickbasic?

I haven't used QBasic enough to comment. Possibly similar but BBC Basic dates
from 1982 ? ish.

Graham

Don Pearce wrote:

Never could understand the huge phobia about GOTO.

Spaghetti code.

Graham

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Trevor Wilson
wrote:

**Wouldn't it be kinda fun to be sued by Bose? I mean, you go to
court to prove that the words uttered (on the Usenet) are correct.

Alas, a problem in the UK (as distinct from other juristictions like
the USA) is that it may not matter that what you said was
"correct". As has been explained in 'Private Eye" many times; under
the UK (or more strictly, England and Wales) libel laws, what will
primarily be judged is, were the statements "damaging", not, were
they "correct".

No, that's not true. Justification (i.e. the allegation is true) is a
defence against libel in English law. However, for this defence to
succeed you have to be able to prove what that what you wrote is true,
which may be a problem for Private Eye!

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander...el#English_law.

Andrew.