Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site redwood.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amdcad!fortune!redwood!rpw3
From: rpw3@redwood.UUCP (Rob Warnock)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <170@redwood.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Feb-85 08:28:32 EST
Article-I.D.: redwood.170
Posted: Fri Feb 22 08:28:32 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Feb-85 17:14:24 EST
References: <1982@inmet.UUCP>
Organization: [Consultant], Foster City, CA
Lines: 34

+---------------
| I've got to agree.  Despite the many bad things which 
| legitmately be said about it, there are occasions when
| Basic is the language of choice: e.g., little interactive
| tools with a short lifetime of use, quick hacks for 
| microcomputers, etc.
| Ben Krepp | {ihnp4,harpo,ima}!inmet!benk
+---------------

I disagree.  [Should this be in net.religion.lang?]

On the PDP-8, PDP-10, and PDP-11 my choice was FOCAL. [Richie Lary, where
are you?]  FOCAL ran nicely on a 4K PDP-8 and included intra-line editing
of programs (FOCAL/F [Doug Wrege] took 8K and added a bunch of real-time
and operating system hooks).  A full-functioned PDP-10 version [mine] was
also 4K words, though 36-bit instead of 12-bit words.

Under UNIX, my choice is Bourne Shell! (...given the usual UNIX utility
commands.) Of course, if there's a lot of demand, I'd be glad to do a
FOCAL in C. ;-}

Actually, what we probably should do in UNIX land is create "hoc7", which
would add interactive editing of functions to K & P's "hoc6". (Yes, "hoc6"
already allows you to "edit" by  retyping the whole function -- I'm referring
to provisions for loading/listing/editing/saving function definitions. It
probably should call an external editor -- in fact, "$EDITOR"!)


Rob Warnock
Systems Architecture Consultant

UUCP:	{ihnp4,ucbvax!dual}!fortune!redwood!rpw3
DDD:	(415)572-2607
USPS:	510 Trinidad Lane, Foster City, CA  94404