Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihnet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ihnet!tjr
From: tjr@ihnet.UUCP (Tom Roberts)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: (qualityp BASIC) -> NIL
Message-ID: <202@ihnet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Feb-85 10:51:01 EST
Article-I.D.: ihnet.202
Posted: Tue Feb 19 10:51:01 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Feb-85 06:45:40 EST
References: <7873@brl-tgr.ARPA> <706@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> <467@houxj.UUCP> <733@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 28

> ....
> Now, back to the subject line (maligning BASIC :-). I know of *no* class
> of problems for which anything even close to ANSI minimal BASIC is the
> best tool for the job.
> ....

NOT TRUE!

If you define "job" as the entire system being constructed (and no other
definition is really useful), when the job is such that a CHEAP home
microcomputer can do it, BASIC may be the only option. I recently designed
and built a home active-solar controller (5 blowers, 25 thermistors) using
a TRS-80 Color Computer. BASIC was the only reasonable language available
(a very minimal BASIC - no disk).

No other selection of computer and language would have been nearly as 
cost-effective (and cost was a major design constraint).

[Don the oft-used asbestos gloves]

	Come on, folks, there's a time and a place for everything.
	Programming languages are [meta-] tools, and it's silly to use
	a sledgehammer on a fly. Especially when the sledgehammer doesn't
	exist.


	Tom Roberts
	ihnp4!ihnet!tjr