Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!necntc!dandelion!ulowell!ross
From: ross@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Ross Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Fish Disk #13 and AmigaBasic
Message-ID: <2154@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 87 20:55:37 GMT
References: <42600011@uicsrd> <4649@well.UUCP> <2131@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> <1318@vaxwaller.UUCP>
Reply-To: ross@swan.cs.ulowell.edu (Ross Miller)
Organization: University of Lowell, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 60

In article <1318@vaxwaller.UUCP> richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes:
)In article <2131@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu>, ross@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Ross Miller) writes:
)) 
)) Abasic does work under 1.2.  It still works better than that piece of
)) junk Microsoft basic.  Abasic had a hokey editor, but other than that
)) it is a superior product without question.  Oh, it didn't handle
)
)	Shall we start a "My basic is better that your basic" war?
Nope.  I dislike all basics in general, just as I dislike FORTRAN.
But upon occasion I am forced by circumstance to use both.
In the case two years ago it was that there were no C compilers that
worked at a reasonable speed off of floppys, and then as today there
are no Common Lisps for the Amiga, at least I have found none, and
I do not consider the Metacomco lisp to have enough of the features
I desire, but I do like the Lisp.

)	I hope we can all agree their are good features in both.
)	Personally I think AbasiC is a much worse that Amigabasic.
)	It does take getting use to, but I've written programs in
)	excess of 40K with Amigabasic and had no problems.
Basics rot in general, but AbasiC did not Guru, and I had no problems
using the system interfaces for graphics and sound that it defined.
Mbasic had problems, especially with giving me type errors when there
were none.  You will have to take my word for it that I understand
the concepts of data typeing very well.  Further I found other cases,
such as labels to be used as targets of gotos not being found, and other
specified parts of the language that failed.
)
)	My real love of basics is Microsofts Quickbasic 4.0 which
)	was just released.  The best of an interpreter and compilier.
)	I hope it will come out for the amiga someday.  It produces
)	a standalone executable that runs faster than anything yet
)	I've used in a compiled basic (including True Basic).
Doesn't that run on of those PC's or something like that?  Bet it
doesn't have features such as the translators, graphics, sound.  These
are features that will fail in Mbasic if you try to push those features
beyond any but the simple case.  True basic?  Wasn't that some kind
of move to standardize basic?  Ha ha ha?
	Beginners Algorythmic Symbolic Instruction Code.
	---------
         -------
          -----
           ---
            -

If people actually want to argue about basics I suppose that's their 
perogative.  I think its a waste of space to continue this.  But for
some reason my fingers just started typing.  I'll go chop them off now ...


						Ross




-- 
csnet: ross@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu
uucp:  ross@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu || ...harvard!ulowell!ross

Trust the computer.	The computer is your friend.