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: Another Basic.
Message-ID: <775@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 26-Feb-85 20:41:32 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbtopaz.775
Posted: Tue Feb 26 20:41:32 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Mar-85 07:17:18 EST
References: <2778@dartvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: mwm@ucbtopaz.UUCP (Praiser of Bob)
Distribution: net
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 22
Summary: 

In article <2778@dartvax.UUCP> karl@dartvax.UUCP (Karl Berry.) writes:
><mike disqualifies all Basics beyond the one with only GOTOs, GOSUBs, and
>such as being ``real'' Basic. I think that the latest ANSI standard Basic is
>quite different from your average microcomputer Basic; it includes all the
>normal control structures, subroutines, and even a way of packaging
>subroutines. It's nothing special, but it's a far cry from spaghetti. I
>don't know if this Basic will ever become the de facto standard on
>microcomputers, but it would be nice if it did...

I'll say the latest ANSII standard BASIC is a far cry from anything running
on a micro. As far as I know, it's a far cry from anything running, period.
(Well, PL/I may be an exception :-).  Does anybody know if anyone has tried
to build an ANSI standard BASIC system (compiler, interpreter, whatever)?

I discount ANSI BASIC for the same reason I discount BASIC09, BASIC+, and a
list of others: it doesn't port afterwards. ANSI left the minimal BASIC as
a standard for far to long, and (as with Pascal) everybody did there own
set of extensions. Thus, the only thing to distinguish ANSI BASIC from a
host of others is the name, the elephantitis, and the (possible) lack of
implementations.

	<mike