Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:2499 comp.windows.ms.programmer:3108 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!noao!arizona!optima.UUCP From: cjeffery@optima.UUCP (Clinton Jeffery) Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,comp.windows.ms.programmer Subject: Re: ap, Windows BASIC Message-ID: <4289@optima.cs.arizona.edu> Date: 14 Jun 91 21:14:38 GMT References: Sender: cjeffery@cs.arizona.edu Followup-To: alt.religion.computers Lines: 14 > [Some person, agreeing with some other person's BASIC-bashing, writes]: > Until now, PD Windows 3.0 programs have mostly been of fairly good quality. > I confidently predict that Visual BASIC will change that. What kind of an elitist statement is this? You think only people who can spend $500 or more (on C compiler and tools) should be allowed to write programs for Windows? Hogwash! There have been so few PD Windows 3.0 programs written that their "quality" is irrelevant. Now, I will be the first to agree with you that BASIC was the WRONG language, and that Visual BASIC is just another sleazy money-grubbing Microsoft product, but I feel that making the programming task more available to more of the proletarian masses is a good concept in general. Ideally it should be free, ideally it should NOT be BASIC (or C), and ideally it should not be for Windows, but people will have to make do with reality I guess.