Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 v7 ucbtopaz-1.8; site ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!mwm From: mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA Newsgroups: net.lang Subject: Re: (qualityp BASIC) -> NIL Message-ID: <754@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> Date: Wed, 20-Feb-85 22:43:42 EST Article-I.D.: ucbtopaz.754 Posted: Wed Feb 20 22:43:42 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 26-Feb-85 06:03:14 EST References: <7873@brl-tgr.ARPA> <706@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> <467@houxj.UUCP> <733@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> <202@ihnet.UUCP> Reply-To: mwm@ucbtopaz.UUCP (Praiser of Bob) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 42 Summary: In article <202@ihnet.UUCP> tjr@ihnet.UUCP (Tom Roberts) writes: >> 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). Sigh. You deleted the paragraphs where I talked about "external constraints." Having to do it on "On a machine that costs less than X dollars" qualifies as an external constraint - you have to use what's available on the market. For your problem (device control on a budget), the "perfect" system (for me!) would be the CoCo with the BASIC rom ripped out and replaced by a LISP interpreter. Unfortunately, nobody has marketed a small system with LISP instead of BASIC. >No other selection of computer and language would have been nearly as >cost-effective (and cost was a major design constraint). If you had a disk drive, an extra $70 would have gotten you the CoCo with LISP (running a multi-tasking OS, which probably would have helped a *lot*). Writing RT control tasks in LISP is a blast - all the nice interactive features of BASIC, along with real functions! > 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. Yes, but if you can get a flyswatter, why use a newspaper? I still stand by my original statement: Barring external constraints, there is *no* class of problems for which anything anywhere near ANSI minimal BASIC is the best tool. As an aside, there is also no other language I'm willing to make that statement about.