home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!netcomsv!netcomsv!ulogic!hartman
- From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
- Subject: Re: Conversion of BASIC c
- Message-ID: <910@ulogic.UUCP>
- Date: 25 Jan 93 13:26:54 GMT
- References: <11434.107.uupcb@cutting.hou.tx.us>
- Organization: negligable
- Lines: 32
-
- In article <11434.107.uupcb@cutting.hou.tx.us> david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) writes:
- |RMH> I am tired of hearing this! I don't care what they claim, but that
- |RMH> new language with functions, subroutines, etc is NOT BASIC! They've
- |RMH> reinvented Algol or Pascal, or something, but >BASIC< is the language
- |RMH> with numbers on every line that you find on C64, Atari 800 and old
- |RMH> Apples.
- |RMH> You know, the one that already has billions of variants even before
- |RMH> trying to bring in an entirely new structured language and giving it
- |RMH> the same name? To call the new language by the same name is a
- |RMH> disservice
- |RMH> to everyone still making use of the real one.
- |
- |RMH> -Richard Hartman
- |RMH> hartman@uLogic.COM
- |
- | What should we call a language that will compile old BASIC code and yet
- |adds functions, subroutines, etc., which still looks a lot like BASIC but
- |with added flexibility? How about BASIC++ ? =)
-
- Facetious though you may have been, that's not a half bad suggestion.
- At least it would imply that the language has been changed.
-
- Try this: If C++ had been released without a name change (still
- called "C") what would the reaction have been?
-
-
-
- -Richard Hartman
- hartman@ulogic.COM
-
- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
- "Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!" -"Ace" Rimmer
-