Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:2515 comp.windows.ms.programmer:3150
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ysub!psuvm!f0o
From: F0O@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: ap, Windows BASIC
Message-ID: <91169.084617F0O@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: 18 Jun 91 12:46:17 GMT
References: <1991Jun14.174946.5065@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
 <59Ro417w164w@mantis.co.uk>
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 26


>> Saying that the world does not need BASIC (or something like it) is
>> essentially saying that only the high priesthood of the programming
>> profession should ever write computer programs.

>Utter crap.  It's saying that people should be given proper programming
>languages to write in, so that they can learn to write properly and join the
>programming profession, rather than being mentally stifled by BASIC and left
>thinking that WHILE loops are a pretty neat idea.

   Don't want to start a language war, but oh well.  Have you used
Microsoft QuickBasic 4.0 or better?  It has some nice features I wish were
in Pascal or other languages.  Like QB's SELECT CASE statement; much more
powerful then Pascals.  It is a fully structured language except for the
fact you can't have nested blocks as in Pascal.  One of the great things
I like about the QB environment is when you press the F2 key, a window
pops up with a list of all your procedures/functions.  Click on the one
you want to look at and bingo.  Very nice.  Also, not having to define the
lengths of your strings is nice(but has it's own bag on worms in certain
cases).
   Besides, for a windows program, or any other program for that matter;
what's more important is not so much the language it's written in, but the
person writing the program.
   Just my thoughts for the day!

                                                           [Tim]