Prev: misc: how random is 'random'?...
Next: Record stack back traces efficiently on space
From: Ben Bacarisse on 4 May 2008 17:18
"Malcolm McLean" <regniztar(a)btinternet.com> writes:

> "Ben Bacarisse" <ben.usenet(a)bsb.me.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> I am sure it is a fine Basic, but why would one prefer it over, say,
>> Python?
>>
> The interpreter is one, freely available C source file of about 3000
> lines. It's much easier to integrate MiniBasic into another program
> than, say, a Python intepreter.

Ah, right. That is indeed a good reason (and one I had overlooked)
however, it turns out the Python is also designed to be very simple to
embed. Of course it is bigger (I imagine) but that is not a reason to
eschew all that newer languages have to offer.

--
Ben.
From: Malcolm McLean on 4 May 2008 18:18

"Ben Bacarisse" <ben.usenet(a)bsb.me.uk> wrote in message
news:87myn5n4ys.fsf(a)bsb.me.uk...
> "Malcolm McLean" <regniztar(a)btinternet.com> writes:
>
>> "Ben Bacarisse" <ben.usenet(a)bsb.me.uk> wrote in message
>>>
>>> I am sure it is a fine Basic, but why would one prefer it over, say,
>>> Python?
>>>
>> The interpreter is one, freely available C source file of about 3000
>> lines. It's much easier to integrate MiniBasic into another program
>> than, say, a Python intepreter.
>
> Ah, right. That is indeed a good reason (and one I had overlooked)
> however, it turns out the Python is also designed to be very simple to
> embed. Of course it is bigger (I imagine) but that is not a reason to
> eschew all that newer languages have to offer.
>
The other reason is that there are millions of thirty to forty somethings
who know BASIC, because of the 1980s craze for microcomputing. I doubt
Python will ever obtain such a base.

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

From: Bartc on 4 May 2008 19:23

"Malcolm McLean" <regniztar(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bpudnSqRmNabnYPVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)bt.com...
> "Ben Bacarisse" <ben.usenet(a)bsb.me.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> I am sure it is a fine Basic, but why would one prefer it over, say,
>> Python?
>>
> The interpreter is one, freely available C source file of about 3000
> lines. It's much easier to integrate MiniBasic into another program than,
> say, a Python intepreter.

I had a look at this once. A couple of things I noticed:

* It is very slow (on one brief test, 40x slower than Python, itself not
known for it's speed)
* The language is very primitive, even for Basic.

Has this ever been commented on?

--
Bartc


From: Richard Heathfield on 4 May 2008 19:53
Malcolm McLean said:

> "Ben Bacarisse" <ben.usenet(a)bsb.me.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> I am sure it is a fine Basic, but why would one prefer it over, say,
>> Python?
>>
> The interpreter is one, freely available C source file of about 3000
> lines.

All right then, Malcolm - you've persuaded me to take a look.

First step: compilation. Well, a trillion carriage returns aren't a good
start, but I can understand why they're there, so I'll just shut up for a
moment while I strip them out.

Next: oh, math library. Fair enough.

Even after dealing with those two issues, however, compilation reports 32
remaining problems with the code.

Sorry, but I don't have time to wade through them all.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
From: Mensanator on 4 May 2008 20:24
On May 4, 5:18�pm, "Malcolm McLean" <regniz...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Ben Bacarisse" <ben.use...(a)bsb.me.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:87myn5n4ys.fsf(a)bsb.me.uk...
>
>
>
> > "Malcolm McLean" <regniz...(a)btinternet.com> writes:
>
> >> "Ben Bacarisse" <ben.use...(a)bsb.me.uk> wrote in message
>
> >>> I am sure it is a fine Basic, but why would one prefer it over, say,
> >>> Python?
>
> >> The interpreter is one, freely available C source file of about 3000
> >> lines. It's much easier to integrate MiniBasic into another program
> >> than, say, a Python intepreter.
>
> > Ah, right. �That is indeed a good reason (and one I had overlooked)
> > however, it turns out the Python is also designed to be very simple to
> > embed. �Of course it is bigger (I imagine) but that is not a reason to
> > eschew all that newer languages have to offer.
>
> The other reason is that there are millions of thirty to forty somethings
> who know BASIC, because of the 1980s craze for microcomputing.

Surely you don't think we're _still_ using BASIC?

> I doubt Python will ever obtain such a base.

Why not? What is it you think we switched to?

>
> --
> Free games and programming goodies.http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: misc: how random is 'random'?...
Next: Record stack back traces efficiently on space