Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!agate!e260-3c!laba-1ei
From: laba-1ei@e260-3c.berkeley.edu (Joseph Chung)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: AmigaBasic
Message-ID: <1990Jun14.042521.12222@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 14 Jun 90 04:25:21 GMT
References: <1930@bnlux0.bnl.gov> <13416@wpi.wpi.edu> <2675c414-219d.2comp.sys.amiga-1@tronsbox.UUCP> <28196@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44)
Reply-To: laba-1ei@e260-3c (Joseph Chung)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 18

In article <28196@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> dill@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Peter
Dill) writes:
>   Both Pascal and BASIC are totally lame languages and just encourge the
>new user to waste time on them. As much as I like it, compiled C might be too 

>                                                     Peter Dill 
>                                                     dill@cs.buffalo.edu
>"Never send a monster to do the work of an evil genius"

What is lame about Pascal?  True, with it's many rules, programmers often
find their hands tied unnecessarily; however, it is quite superior to
BASIC.  Can you describe lame? 

-jc
--
Joseph Chung
== You can always find what you're not looking for! ==
laba-1ei@web.berkeley.edu