Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewse!macduff From: macduff@cbnewse.att.com (Roger R. Espinosa) Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn Subject: Re: More about BASIC vs. Pascal vs. C (the flame war continues !) Summary: Geez! I thought we were a more open breed... Message-ID: <1991Feb13.134427.11378@cbnewse.att.com> Date: 13 Feb 91 13:44:27 GMT References: <5129@acorn.co.uk> Organization: The Rabbit Corps Lines: 56 In article <5129@acorn.co.uk>, asmith@acorn.co.uk (Andy Smith) writes: > > In article mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes: > > >rkl@and.cs.liv.ac.uk (Richard K Lloyd) writes: > >> [ COBOL and FORTRAN stuff deleted. Don't even know why it's here... ] > > >>Really good Pascals (i.e. Borland's Turbo and VAX/VMS Pascal) give C more > >>than a run for its money for advanced users. It's the lousier Pascals > >>(UCSD et al) that give the language a bad name. > > > >That's because these "lousy" Pascals are ones which stick to the standard, > >whereas things like Borland Turbo "Pascal" are so extended as to be Pascal in > >name only. This, of course, means that you have zero portability from Turbo > >"Pascal" to anything else. > > Same with BBC BASIC, its only BASIC by name, but look how many companies > have now copied it. You can get BBC BASIC for PC's, Atari, Amiga, etc. There > must be something good about BBC BASIC, otherwise why would so many people > want to use it. As far as micros go, they all get supplied with a BASIC as > standard. I do not know of a machine that get C or Pascal as standard?? Well, no, but the Acorn is the first machine I've seen that has a decent BASIC as standard. GW-BASIC isn't so great (or there wouldn't be QuickBASIC), and I never heard *anything* good about AmigaBASIC when I frequented that part of the net. And yes, it's the same as TurboPascal. My previous knowledge of BASIC (heck, we're talking Applesoft here) does *not* help at all with BBC BASIC. I'm talking about the advanced features necessary to do advanced programming. *I* do like BBC BASIC, I'll admit that. I never thought I'd see the day come when I'd go back to using BASIC, but as a fast prototyping tool, it's beginning to show a lot of merit. What I *don't* understand is why these discussions get started anyway. C is my favorite language to use; this doesn't mean it's the best, or that there aren't any other languages out there better than C. I woudln't mind trying C++, or Smalltalk, or dabbling more in Lisp. Right now, for *me*, C is the better choice, because I can use it on more platforms that I work on (can't say that about Pascal or BASIC or Lisp or Smalltalk). There's never been one standard language, and I hope there never is. What I'd more like to see is a standard means of translating filetypes/filesystems; that would seem more useful a cause than this language-argument business. The current arguments are all deja-vu (to me). It's the "Should we write the tool in sh/awk/sed, or write it in C" discussion I've become so familiar with here on the job. And the answer is always: it depends. Sounds pretty applicable here, too. But I could be wrong (or ignored). Oh well. Roger rre@ihlpm.ATT.COM