Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cci-bdc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!cybvax0!cci-bdc!jlup From: jlup@cci-bdc.UUCP (John Lupien ) Newsgroups: net.lang Subject: Re: basic for UNIX? Message-ID: <152@cci-bdc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 20-Feb-85 13:18:39 EST Article-I.D.: cci-bdc.152 Posted: Wed Feb 20 13:18:39 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 26-Feb-85 03:57:32 EST References: <7873@brl-tgr.ARPA>, <706@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> <467@houxj.UUCP> Organization: Computer Consoles, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 27 > > I never use BASIC myself for anything. But arguments that > it is worthless, inferior, outdated, etc are incorrect. > It may be totally useless to you if you know C and don't > have any software written in BASIC that you want to use. > A version of BASIC that supports matrix operations may > be the best possible language in existence for a user > who needs to do lots of quick, throwaway programs that > > > Bill Dietrich > houxj!wapd > Yes, BASIC is a fine language for writing "throwaway" programs that will only be run once, however it is NOT fine for writing easily maintained software *systems* that will perform well. More importantly, if the BASIC version of a system is selling, engineering types who see a clear advantage to a C language re-write in terms of system load, performance, maintainability, and control (most BASIC programs can be modified at whim by the user) will be stymied by marketing types who aren't yet spending as much on support as they think a re-write will cost. Just wait, though. The moving finger points in many directions, and those who decide on BASIC will eventually be made to pay the FULL price.