Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:2505 comp.windows.ms.programmer:3130
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: ap, Windows BASIC
Message-ID: <cgso418w164w@mantis.co.uk>
Date: 17 Jun 91 12:56:11 GMT
References: <4289@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
Lines: 33

cjeffery@optima.UUCP (Clinton Jeffery) writes:
> > [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?

No. I don't think C compilers should be $500. I got C, Modula-2, and a set of
GEM developer's tools for the ST for less than $300.

How much is Turbo 'Pascal' for Windows these days?  It may not be Pascal, but
it's better than BASIC.

>                                    There have been so few PD Windows 3.0
> programs written that their "quality" is irrelevant.

What a bizarre attitude.

>                                                  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.

Sorry, but what on earth led you to believe that I would disagree with any of
that?


mathew