Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:2520 comp.windows.ms.programmer:3167 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!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: Date: 18 Jun 91 12:07:09 GMT References: Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. Lines: 24 jbtubman@beetle.arc.ab.ca (Jim Tubman) writes: > My, I wish I could make such confident pronouncements about stuff I've > never seen. > > Seriously though, I've seen quite a few articles about Visual BASIC in > the trade press lately, all of them positive, some of then rabidly so. The trade press were rabidly positive about OS/2 1.0. > Most of the articles start by advising the reader to abandon any > preconceptions that they have about old versions of BASIC and take the > product on its own merits. Look, is it BASIC or is it not? If it's nothing like BASIC and Microsoft are just calling it BASIC, then that's stupid marketing. They might as well call Word for Windows "Visual EDLIN". If it *is* BASIC, or BASIC with a few extensions, as I expect, then I stand by my comments. mathew