From: John Woodgate
Subject: Re: Which basic compiler to buy?
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 11:41:26 +0000
Organization: JMWA Electronics Consultancy
Reply-To: John Woodgate
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 14:35:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 <5Z8C9wtxbnpWyFnyfFzqmVF739>
I read in sci.electronics.design that Dave Martindale
wrote (in ) about 'Which basic compiler to
buy?', on Sun, 15 Dec 2002:
>question is, what language lets you write the code you need the fastest,
It is if you are a real programmer, as opposed to someone who writes
programs only when there is no alternative. Speed is then not a
priority, just so long as the program does what you want.
>and also gives you something that you (and others) can read and
>understand years later?
I find C programs totally impenetrable, at ANY time. But I am sure that
other people don't have that problem.
>For anything more complex than printing a
>Fahrenheit-Celsius conversion table, I always seem to find something
>else better than Basic. The "something else" might be assembler, or C,
>or Perl, or something further afield, depending on the application.
You are bound to find advantages in being 'multilingual'. My point is
simply that BASIC isn't useless, not even nearly so. But I agree it has
its limits; it's the '741' of programming languages.
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!