home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!decwrl!olivea!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!news
- From: pinky@tamu.edu (The Man Behind The Curtain)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
- Subject: Re: Conversion of BASIC code to "C"
- Message-ID: <1jutuaINNrop@tamsun.tamu.edu>
- Date: 24 Jan 93 20:24:42 GMT
- References: <1993Jan10.131651.1@csbina.csubak.edu> <1993Jan14.000132.1427@microsoft.com> <885@ulogic.UUCP>
- Sender: ski8032@tamsun.tamu.edu
- Organization: Texas A&M University
- Lines: 30
- NNTP-Posting-Host: tamsun.tamu.edu
-
- Thus spake hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman):
- >In article <1993Jan14.000132.1427@microsoft.com> philco@microsoft.com (Phillip Cooper) writes:
- >> In case you didn't realize
- >>it, BASIC is now fully structured (with functions, subroutines, etc..).
- >
- >I am tired of hearing this! I don't care what they claim, but that
- >new language with functions, subroutines, etc is NOT BASIC!
-
- That's funny. I've programmed in what I thought was BASIC for at
- least 3, 4 years with nary a goto or subroutine. Certainly even
- microcomputer BASICs had subroutines, and most had primitive functions
- (ie. DEF FN, etc.)
-
- Certainly the inventors of the language felt that such structures
- were an integral part of Basic; they in fact deplored what happened
- to their language when ported to limited microcomputers (in _Back_To_Basic_)
-
- At any rate, I could probably read and understand most variations
- of Basic, though you might choose to call them something else.
- If I didn't know Pascal, on the other hand, I would be unlikely
- to understand what someone else had written.
-
- > -Richard Hartman
-
- IMHO, of course.
-
- --
- Till next time, \o/ \o/
- V \o/ V email:pinky@tamu.edu
- <> Sam Inala <> V
-