Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!bingvaxu!sunybcs!rutgers!att!oucsace!deadpup!paul
From: paul@deadpup.UUCP (paul)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Structured Programming (shading into Computer Folklore)
Message-ID: <187@deadpup.UUCP>
Date: 3 Mar 89 15:42:22 GMT
References: <16129@mimsy.UUCP> <447@lakart.UUCP> <26640@apple.Apple.COM>
Organization: self employed in Athens, OH
Lines: 20

In article <26640@apple.Apple.COM>, desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) writes:
> It is possible to write large, well-documented programs in BASIC, and
> to debug and maintain them. It is also possible to ride a moped on a
> race course. In both cases you are using a tool for a purpose which it
> was not designed for, expending a lot of effort to do that, and
> taking longer to finish the job.

Speaking from the point of view of someone who spent entirely too many
years writing applications in BASIC on the TRS-80 series, yeh! One had
to exercise _extream_ care in variable naming. In addition, several
necessary speed/memory optimizations worked against propper commenting,
and for that matter readable programs. This necessitated voluminous
documentation external to the source. But FORTRAN ate too much memory,
and assembler took to long to write, so BASIC was the most appropriate
of the available languages. Now, having matured to "real machines," I
most certainly wouldn't give up C for BASIC.

Paul J. Mech
oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU!deadpup!paul
uiucuxc!oucs!oucsace!deadpup!paul