davidlo@madvax.UUCP (David Lo) (07/17/87)
There are two questions from a friend of mine related to AmigaBasic.
( He does not have access to Usenet )
1) In running an AmigaBasic program, how can one output 80 column.
( I think the default is 60 column )
2) In editing a program in AmigaBasic, how does one do a line
continuation. (i.e. continuing the program line on the next
physical line ).
Any help is appreciated.
--
David Lo (415)939-2400 /\ o
Varian Instruments, 2700 Mitchell Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 \/
{ptsfa,lll-crg,zehntel,dual,amd,fortune,ista,rtech,csi,normac}varian!davidlomarkr@garfield.UUCP (07/20/87)
In article <610@madvax.UUCP>, davidlo@madvax.UUCP (David Lo) writes: > 1) In running an AmigaBasic program, how can one output 80 column. > ( I think the default is 60 column ) All you have to do is set prefrences to 80 column before going into AmigaBasic. > 2) In editing a program in AmigaBasic, how does one do a line > continuation. (i.e. continuing the program line on the next > physical line ). I don't know how or why you would want to do this one. I can say that you may want a long IF command. If this is so look at the examples of multi-line IF's in the book. While I am hear I would like to point out two major bugs in AmigaBasic. (1) END IF (SPACE) If you have any spaces after an END IF is is a SYNTAX ERROR! (2) This line will cause a SYSTEM ERROR!! a=a+1:print a:for r=1 to 10: Any line of code that ends with a ":" will cause major errors! And put a FIND AND REPLACE IN YOUR EDITOR!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks, Joseph Robert Dawson Sysop of BITSTOP, a ALL HOME MADE AMIGABASIC BBS!!! 1-(709)-753-0196
jedi@clark-emh.arpa (05/08/88)
Ok, Ok. Time for another easy trivia question. How come when I load AmigaBasic, it will only let me access 25000 bytes. It makes it kind of hard to run some of the larger programs? I have the full meg on my A500 (A-501 installed) and it recognizes that by telling me that there is 7????? bytes free for the system. Any answers will be appreatieated, especieally if you can tell me how to raise the 25000 to a larger number. Thanks again, Mike Hampton Jedi@Clark-EMH.arpa
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (06/12/90)
In <13416@wpi.wpi.edu>, jdutka@wpi.wpi.edu (John Dutka) writes: > >With the use of a BASIC compiler like A-Basic, the speed of AmigaBASIC >programs can be brought up to satisfactory levels. Why not use a real editor and a compiler like HiSoft, instead of driving yourself into an early grave with yet another piece of crap by Microsoft? -larry -- The raytracer of justice recurses slowly, but it renders exceedingly fine. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
a751@mindlink.UUCP (Ian Bakshi) (06/12/90)
I have a friend who contilly raves about HiSoft Basic. It might be worth a try.
creutz@bnlux0.bnl.gov (michael creutz) (06/12/90)
for AmigaBasic. A local bulletin board bans amigabasic postings, and basic submissions to sources have a high probability of finding a black hole. Commodore is apparently considering discontinuing its inclusion with the computer. Amigabasic does have serious shortcomings. It often crashes the machine and has a half-featured editor (which becomes useless if used at other than default priority). It does not appear to run at all on the 3000. These problems could be fixed, but probably never will because of the community attitude. On the other hand, it does make trying simple ideas simple. Quick changes in a program are trivial, and setting up fancy graphics screens etc. only takes a few lines. All system functions are available through libraries, and it is easy to put an assembly routine in an array. Speed is not really an issue here. Any interpreted language is inherently slow (AREXX and AmigaBasic are comparable in speed). If speed is necessary one should develop the idea in a simple language like basic and then rewrite it in assembly (which is not too hard on the Amiga because of all the nice libraries). I feel it is important for a computer to have an easy to use language for both beginners and simple playing around. It should be included with the computer so all users will have one common ground. I hope that AmigaVision is successful in filling this need. Are there other closet basic programmers out there? Mike
jdutka@wpi.wpi.edu (John Dutka) (06/13/90)
In article <1930@bnlux0.bnl.gov> creutz@bnlux0.bnl.gov (michael creutz) writes: >Are there other closet basic programmers out there? Hopefully, Commodore will continue to upgrade AmigaBASIC. I've done quite a bit of programming in AmigaBASIC, mainly programs to analyze stresses in static trusses, beams, etc., to determine the characteristics of flow in nozzles (i.e. determining the velocity of a fluid flowing through a duct/converging-diverging nozzle, locating any shocks, and designing nozzles based on this), and analyzing the aerodynamics of aircraft and wings/airfoils and their sections for design purposes. AmigaBASIC may not be one of the fastest languages, but it's (in my opinion) one of the easiest to learn. It only takes me a few minutes to throw together programs I need for simple heat transfer applications, etc..., but if I had to do it in FORTRAN on the Encore Multimax mainframe we have here, the program would take factors of time longer. AmigaBASIC is such a simple and versatile programming language to use, that I hope C= will continue to support/improve it. If anyone at C= reads this, please take this seriously... With the use of a BASIC compiler like A-Basic, the speed of AmigaBASIC programs can be brought up to satisfactory levels. -- +--------------------+-------------------------------------------------------+ | John A. Dutka, Jr. | "No matter how big a straw, you can't suck water up | | Box 2308 | more than 34 feet." | | 100 Institute Rd. | -A PROFESSOR WHO WISHES TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS. | | (508)755-7128 +-----+-------------------+-----------------------------+ | Worcester, MA 01609-2280 | | jdutka@wpi.wpi.edu | +--------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------+
bleys@tronsbox.UUCP (Bill Cavanaugh) (06/13/90)
>Hopefully, Commodore will continue to upgrade AmigaBASIC.
For better or worse, Commodore has nothing to do with AmigaBasic. It was
written, and the rights were retained, by MicroSoft. Can anybody imagine
Bill Gates trying to push Amiga sales?
You're right, there should be a Basic or Pascal interpreter packaged with
the machine, but right now, they're going with AmigaVision, which is a much
more useful tool for the average user, rather than for programmers. ARexx
is in there for the frustrated programmer in the audience, too!
/********************************************************************
* All of the above copyright by the below. *
* *
* Bill Cavanaugh uunet!tronsbox!bleys *
* *
* "You can only be young once, but you can be immature forever." *
* Larry Anderson *
********************************************************************/dill@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Peter Dill) (06/14/90)
In article <2675c414-219d.2comp.sys.amiga-1@tronsbox.UUCP> bleys@tronsbox.UUCP (Bill Cavanaugh) writes: >>Hopefully, Commodore will continue to upgrade AmigaBASIC. > >For better or worse, Commodore has nothing to do with AmigaBasic. It was >written, and the rights were retained, by MicroSoft. Can anybody imagine >Bill Gates trying to push Amiga sales? The May 14th issue of "MicroTimes" reports on p98: The version of MicroSoft BASIC included with the consumer A500 is an upgrade from the current version. MicroSoft has fixed the bugs that have plagued its current release, and in fact Commodore will market the new version as a stand alone product for those customers who do not receive it bundeled with their machines (A500 Pro, A2000, A3000). Ooo, a real test for their "zero bugs" policy. >You're right, there should be a Basic or Pascal interpreter packaged with >the machine, but right now, they're going with AmigaVision, which is a much >more useful tool for the average user, rather than for programmers. ARexx >is in there for the frustrated programmer in the audience, too! Both Pascal and BASIC are totally lame languages and just encourge the new user to waste time on them. As much as I like it, compiled C might be too difficult for the begining programmer and a Commodore product would compete with the commercial versions. Maybe they could make an interperted version of C could replace AmigaBASIC and solve both these problems. Anyway it will be intresting to see which of their product's many bugs MicroSoft has decided to fix. Peter Dill dill@cs.buffalo.edu "Never send a monster to do the work of an evil genius"
laba-1ei@e260-3c.berkeley.edu (Joseph Chung) (06/14/90)
In article <28196@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> dill@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Peter Dill) writes: > Both Pascal and BASIC are totally lame languages and just encourge the >new user to waste time on them. As much as I like it, compiled C might be too > Peter Dill > dill@cs.buffalo.edu >"Never send a monster to do the work of an evil genius" What is lame about Pascal? True, with it's many rules, programmers often find their hands tied unnecessarily; however, it is quite superior to BASIC. Can you describe lame? -jc -- Joseph Chung == You can always find what you're not looking for! == laba-1ei@web.berkeley.edu
arxt@tank.uchicago.edu (patrick palmer) (06/14/90)
In article <28196@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> dill@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Peter Dill) writes: >In article <2675c414-219d.2comp.sys.amiga-1@tronsbox.UUCP> bleys@tronsbox.UUCP (Bill Cavanaugh) writes: >>>Hopefully, Commodore will continue to upgrade AmigaBASIC. > > Both Pascal and BASIC are totally lame languages and just encourge the For better or for worse, school children learn Logowriter, Basic, and (for the AP computer science test), Pascal. It seems to me necessary to have available versions of these languages if one wants to make any dent in the family computer market. Otherwise, Commodore presents exactly the appearance that offends many of us: imagine a potential customer finding that if he/she buys an A500, all the kids can do with it is play games. (We all know that there are a lot of educational things one can do with computers besides program; but, imagine asking a typical teacher for advice about this.) Pat Palmer (email: reply or ppalmer@oddjob.uchicago.edu)
jdutka@wpi.wpi.edu (John Dutka) (06/14/90)
In article <1729@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: >Why not use a real editor and a compiler like HiSoft, instead of driving >yourself into an early grave with yet another piece of crap by Microsoft? Because I happen to like AmigaBASIC and Microsoft BASIC. And both AmigaBASIC and the A-Basic compiler have worked for me very well over the years. I'd much rather have had you E-Mail me that reply, but... AmigaBASIC has served me well over the years, and, as a college student, I'm lacking the time to learn the nuances of HiSoft, and lacking the money to shell out for HiSoft. Your argument would be like asking me why I use FORTRAN 77 on a mainframe for writing apps that deal with text manipulation when Pascal could do it much easier. For the same reason as AmigaBASIC, I LEARNED to program that way, in these 2 languages, and, like I said, I have neither the time and money for HiSoft. All I need now is an update to AmigaBASIC that speeds up the LIST and OUTPUT windows and speeds up output from AmigaBASIC programs. >-- >The raytracer of justice recurses slowly, but it renders exceedingly fine. Just out of curiousity, what was the original quote that your footer was based on. It sounds very familiar to me, but I can't remember, and it's driving me crazy, so... Please E-MAIL any responses... -- | husc6!m2c!wpi!jdutka | "Hey, baby - wanna do some HEAT TRANSFER? | | jdutka@wpi.wpi.edu | Heh, heh, heh!" | | John Dutka, Jr. | -Mechanical Engineers On The Prowl | | jdutka%wpi.wpi.edu%mitvma.bitnet __________________________________________|
wfh58@leah.Albany.Edu (William F. Hammond) (06/15/90)
In article <1990Jun14.054606.564@midway.uchicago.edu> arxt@tank.uchicago.edu (patrick palmer) writes: > ... > > > > Hopefully, Commodore will continue to upgrade AmigaBASIC. > ... >For better or for worse, school children learn Logowriter, Basic, and >(for the AP computer science test), Pascal. It seems to me necessary >to have available versions of these languages if one wants to make any >dent in the family computer market. ... > There's a difference between what is bundled and what is available. (At least we have a bundled multi-tasking operating system that nobody in his right mind wants to overlay.) For most purposes I think that ARexx is a superior alternative to AmigaBasic. I understand that AmigaBasic, as well as third party compilable versions of Basic will be available. There is also at least one third party version of Pascal available. In fact, just about anything of *educational* merit is available for the Amiga, much of it for free. (Well, this doesn't always hit me in the face when I visit the stores.) > >Pat Palmer (email: reply or ppalmer@oddjob.uchicago.edu) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- William F. Hammond Dept. of Mathematics & Statistics 518-442-4625 SUNYA, Albany, NY 12222 wfh58@leah.albany.edu wfh58@albnyvms.bitnet ----------------------------------------------------------------------
bleys@tronsbox.xei.com (Bill Cavanaugh) (06/15/90)
In article <28196@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> dill@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Peter Dill) writes: > Both Pascal and BASIC are totally lame languages and just encourge the >new user to waste time on them. As much as I like it, compiled C might be too While Pascal and Basic don't afford the flexibility and power of C, they ARE the languages taught to kids in our schools, and therefore the languages most casual programmers are gonna be comfortable with. If AmigaBasic wasn't such a buggy bugger, and if the interface wasn't mired in the muck, I wouldn't have bothered to consider C, and I >am< a programmer. I use EasyTrieve Plus (a 4GL report language) and COBOL (ugh) on a mainframe all day, and I learned Basic, Fortran, and a little PL1 in school. Learning C >just< to write some toys for Ami is a bit much. /******************************************************************** * All of the above copyright by the below. * * * * Bill Cavanaugh uunet!tronsbox!bleys * * * * "You can only be young once, but you can be immature forever." * * Larry Anderson * ********************************************************************/
GWO110%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (F. Michael Theilig) (06/15/90)
There are TOO many things I want to respond to ...
First, AmigaBasic, AREXX, and AmigaVision are three totally different
products. AmigaBasic is FASTER and easier (enironment-wise) than AREXX.
AREXX allows for system work that is beyond the scope of BASIC. I've
never had the pleasure of working with AmigaVision. It is probably
easier than either AREXX and AmigaBasic.
The only benifits of keeping AmigaBasic around is that there is
a lot of programs already written in it, and schools teach it. In
my opinion schools that teach BASIC should be drawn and quartered.
It's too old of a language, and has no real standard anymore. Let
it die in peace.
AmigaVision and AREXX will probably serve for simple programming
(i.e. novice) in over 99% of the cases. If you want a cheap Pascal
compiler, PCQ works just fine. There are two C compilers that
generate executable without buying Amiga.lib. Also there is Cursor
which compiles AmigaBasic code. It need MAJOR enhancements, but it
does work.
People are too stuck on BASIC. It's almost an addiction. People
tell me how this new compiler supports structured programming, they
fail to realize the problems with retrofitting structure on an old
and tired language. An interpreted Pascal is a great idea. But only
once there is a professional development grade Pascal compiler.
Let Basic die in peace.
----
F. Michael Theilig - The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest
GWO110 at URIACC.Bitnet
GKZ117 at URIACC.Bitnet
"Gooooood coffee."peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (06/15/90)
In article <1930@bnlux0.bnl.gov> creutz@bnlux0.bnl.gov (michael creutz) writes: >Amigabasic does have serious shortcomings. It often crashes >the machine Yes, but we know already how to work around all these caveats. E.g. running on a 68020 you shouldn't use real SUB's! >It seems >not appear to run at all on the 3000. These problems could >be fixed, but probably never will because of the community >attitude. There are rumors that we will get a new version Real Soon Now. >On the other hand, it does make trying simple ideas simple. >Quick changes in a program are trivial, and setting up fancy >graphics screens etc. only takes a few lines. All system >functions are available through libraries, and it is easy >to put an assembly routine in an array. Fully agreed. >Speed is not really an issue here. Any interpreted language >is inherently slow (AREXX and AmigaBasic are comparable in >speed). As far as I know about AREXX, I hear the same. But more important: Though AREXX also is a full programming language, it is not as easy to use (ok, I don't have experience with it yet, only looked through some books and examples) and not as general purpose as AmigaBasic. >I feel it is important for a computer to have an easy to >use language for both beginners and simple playing around. >It should be included with the computer so all users will >have one common ground. I hope that AmigaVision is >successful in filling this need. AmigaVision too is something different than a general purpose programming language. I fear it wouldn't serve you for eg a 5 line program to do some re-formatting of a big data file. >Are there other closet basic programmers out there? >Mike Yesssssir! -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ rutgers!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
wfh58@leah.Albany.Edu (William F. Hammond) (06/15/90)
In article <22042@snow-white.udel.EDU> GWO110%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (F. Michael Theilig) writes: > ... > ... AmigaBasic is FASTER and easier (enironment-wise) than AREXX. > AREXX allows for system work that is beyond the scope of BASIC. ... If you're experienced with Basic and have never used Rexx before, yes, AmigaBasic will seem easier than ARexx. But if you know both equally well, it's a different story. While an advanced ARexx user can do things that would be difficult in AmigaBasic, everyday things can be done more easily IMHO in ARexx than in Basic. First, ARexx does not give the feeling of "taking over" the machine. You just say "rx program_name". If you want to debug, there's a fantastic "tracing console", a special window, that shows you everything that's going on without the insertion of "print" statements you really don't want in your code (or in the "output window"). You can arrange to go through the code a step at a time. > ... > F. Michael Theilig - The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest > GWO110 at URIACC.Bitnet > GKZ117 at URIACC.Bitnet ---------------------------------------------------------------------- William F. Hammond Dept. of Mathematics & Statistics 518-442-4625 SUNYA, Albany, NY 12222 wfh58@leah.albany.edu wfh58@albnyvms.bitnet ----------------------------------------------------------------------
wfh58@leah.Albany.Edu (William F. Hammond) (06/15/90)
In article <2678120a-219d.5comp.sys.amiga-1@tronsbox.xei.com> bleys@tronsbox.xei.com (Bill Cavanaugh) writes: >In article <28196@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> dill@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Peter >Dill) writes: > ... >While Pascal and Basic don't afford the flexibility and power of C, they ARE >the languages taught to kids in our schools, and therefore the languages most >casual programmers are gonna be comfortable with. > ... And the machines in those schools are probably the machines most casual users are gonna be comfortable with. (??) BTW, I would like to hope that "Pascal" and "Basic" are not what is being taught. What I would like to hope is being taught is "elementary programming". Some language is a necessary vehicle for this. I suspect that "Basic" may not be a major such vehicle for much longer. > * All of the above copyright by the below. * > * * > * Bill Cavanaugh uunet!tronsbox!bleys * ---------------------------------------------------------------------- William F. Hammond Dept. of Mathematics & Statistics 518-442-4625 SUNYA, Albany, NY 12222 wfh58@leah.albany.edu wfh58@albnyvms.bitnet ----------------------------------------------------------------------
new@udel.EDU (Darren New) (06/16/90)
In article <207@cbmger.UUCP> peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) writes: >In article <1930@bnlux0.bnl.gov> creutz@bnlux0.bnl.gov (michael creutz) writes: >>Amigabasic does have serious shortcomings. It often crashes >>the machine >Yes, but we know already how to work around all these caveats. >E.g. running on a 68020 you shouldn't use real SUB's! How about posting this list of crashes and how to avoid them? AmigaBASIC crashes on my A1000! >Though AREXX also is a full programming language, it is not as easy >to use (ok, I don't have experience with it yet, only looked through some >books and examples) and not as general purpose as AmigaBasic. I disagree. There are some shortcomings of ARexx (no pass-by-reference) but other than that it is indeed general purpose. I just finished a random dungeon generator that I was going to do in AmigaBASIC except BASIC crashed my machine. I would estimate that the two programs would have been of similar length. The other shortcomings of ARexx are lack of a built-in editor (big deal...) and non-trivial access to graphics, sound, etc (have to send messages to another program). >I fear [AmigaVision] wouldn't serve you for eg a 5 line program to do some >re-formatting of a big data file. I suspect you are right. But ARexx would (if not better than BASIC). I always say, "BASIC is the language for programs too short to bother to save on disk." :-) -- Darren
dill@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Peter Dill) (06/16/90)
In article <1990Jun14.042521.12222@agate.berkeley.edu> laba-1ei@e260-3c (Joseph Chung) writes: >In article [#9 #9 #9...] dill@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Peter Dill) writes: >> Both Pascal and BASIC are totally lame languages and just encourge the >>new user to waste time on them. As much as I like it, compiled C might be too > >What is lame about Pascal? True, with it's many rules, programmers often >find their hands tied unnecessarily; however, it is quite superior to >BASIC. Can you describe lame? > There are a lot of well know problems with Pascal and there is no point in going into them again, and Wirth was right to start fresh. To make Pascal more useable various compiler makers all add their own fixes meaning that Pascal isn't much of a standard anymore. I think both these languages are pretty much languishing with good reason. It would be nice if there wasn't a necessity for the series "Hack AmigaBASIC to get Feature X" articles in "Amazing Computing". Peter Dill dill@cs.buffalo.edu "Never send a monster to do the work of an evil genius"
dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Francis Heffernan) (06/16/90)
|would have been of similar length. The other shortcomings of |ARexx are lack of a built-in editor (big deal...) and non-trivial |access to graphics, sound, etc (have to send messages to another |program). We could always try to find some kind-hearted, ARexx-loving genius out there to write a graphics/sound library for us Arexx slugs. :-) Dennis Francis Heffernan | "Remember the words of your teacher, dfrancis@tronsbox | your master: Evil moves fast, but ...uunet!tronsbox!dfrancis | Good moves faster!" Original text (c) 1990 | --Partners in Kryme, T-U-R-T-L-E Power!
harald@boink.UUCP (Harald Milne) (06/27/90)
In article <2202@sauron.Columbia.NCR.COM>, stevem@sauron.Columbia.NCR.COM (Steve McClure) writes: > In article <13598@wpi.wpi.edu> jdutka@wpi.wpi.edu (John Dutka) writes: > |In article <228@cbmger.UUCP> peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) writes: > |Now only if it worked on/took advantage of the 3000 or whatever unit it was > |installed in. And it's so damned slow even on my 2000HD. The list and > |output windows come up so slowly it's pathetic. Those are my only problems > |with AmigaBASIC... > > AmigaBASIC doesn't work on '020 and '030 machines? I applied a patch I got from Compuserve, by Joanne Dow. I can't really remember if it was a patch or just instructions on how to patch, its been so long ago I did this. Anyway, I just checked on my A2500/20, and it works just fine, so the answer is yes, the problem can be fixed. The problem now is, I don't have this fix or even remember what it was for that matter, and I no longer have access to Compuserve. I can't help as far as the fix itself, sorry. But, I'm sure somebody here on usenet can help out and post the fix, or better yet, send it to Tad Guy for distribution so we know he's alive and well. I hate to ask, but is this still broken in current Workbench Extras distribution? So anyway, what is AmigaBasic? 8^) > Steve email: Steve.McClure@Columbia.NCR.COM 803-791-7054 > The above are my opinions, which NCR doesn't really care about anyway! > CAUSER's Amiga BBS! | 803-796-3127 | 8pm-8am 8n1 | 300/1200/2400 -- Harald Milne RISCy business uunet!ccicpg!boink!harald
jdutka@wpi.wpi.edu (John Dutka) (06/28/90)
In article <564@boink.UUCP> harald@boink.UUCP (Harald Milne) writes: > I applied a patch I got from Compuserve, by Joanne Dow. I can't really >remember if it was a patch or just instructions on how to patch, its been >so long ago I did this. Does anyone know if there's a patch to make it work on a 3000/25? :) -- | husc6!m2c!wpi!jdutka | | | | |'', | | Real computer companies don't use | | jdutka@wpi.wpi.edu | | | | |--' | | VAXes - they own CRAYs... | | John Dutka, Jr. | |_|_| | | | "My other computer is a ZX-81!" | | jdutka%wpi.wpi.edu%mitvma.bitnet _____+____________________________________|
pnelson@hobbes.uucp (Phil Nelson) (07/04/90)
In article <26400@netnews.upenn.edu> strasser@grasp.cis.upenn.edu.UUCP (Colin Strasser) writes: |In article <3685@tymix.UUCP> pnelson@hobbes.UUCP (Phil Nelson) writes: | || If I were able to buy QuickBASIC 4.5 for the Amiga, I would have written ||more useful programs, with some encouragement, some of them probably would ||be in the public domain right now. || || Oh, but I forgot - I'm not a developer or a guru, or even a teenage ||midnight hacker - I'm just a guy trying to get some useful work out of this ||thing. Since I have neither the time or the inclination to memorize megabytes ||of arcane terms before I even begin to write code, I couldn't possibly ever ||write a useful program, right? || || Now that I think about it, the fact that I don't even know what Execbase is ||probably disqualifies me from even having an opinion. || ||right? | |That's quite a chip on your shoulder, Phil. Not really, I was just trying to make a point. I admit to overdramatizing somewhat, but I still think it is a valid point - that 'plain people' tend to feel excluded and put off by groups who require a long and difficult initiation. For a club, this may not be a bad thing, for selling computers, it is not so good. I don't mean to say that I think Amiga afficionados are worse than average in their tendancy to intimidate newcomers, just that we could be better. | |I really can't recall any "developers," "gurus," or "midnight hackers" |refusing to acknowledge quality software because it was written in BASIC. |Programmers may have strong opinions regarding their own preferences, but |I don't think the general censure you seem to feel is valid. I didn't say that it happened, I was merely trying to (over :-) dramatize my reaction to confronting AmigaBASIC, giving up on it, and then reading gratuitous flaming of BASIC here and elsewhere. I hoped that people would think about the implication for Amiga sales. I think the Amiga should live up to it's name, it should welcome newcomers. The most encouraging development along these lines is probably AmigaVision, but BASIC is tried and true, I propose that Amiga have a great BASIC and a great OOP system, just as it has the workbench and CLI. If an improvement on BASIC can be found (AREXX?, Modula-2? ??) fine, but it has to be really better, not just more 'sophisticated', 'elegant' or whatever. By better I mean easier to use to do better work. |And even if it were, what do you care? (Haven't I used this argument before |somewhere? (-: ) If you enjoy developing in BASIC, then go ahead. You |can even release your programs to the public (via the net, or BBSs, or |whatever) and see what kind of response you get. I'll bet you'd be pleas- |antly surprised. If the AmigaBasic environment turns you off, try True |BASIC. I think it's out of distribution but you might be able to get it |used. Anyway, the point is that nobody's going to say, "Let's go find |Phil and laugh at him for hacking in BASIC." At least not if your software |is any good :-). I have True BASIC, AC/BASIC, Manx C, Benchmark Modula 2 and AREXX. I have used True BASIC and AC/BASIC. I prefer AC/BASIC to True BASIC. What I want is Microsoft QuickBASIC for the Amiga. It's not about people laughing at me, it's about whether I think, up front, that it will be worth my time to invest in learning the skills necessary to accomplish something useful to me. Remember that I have to make the determination BEFORE I know the language, unless it's one I already know. When I (or rather, the prospective Amiga buyer, you don't care what I do :-) makes an assessment up front, it's going to involve a lot of subjectives, If people get the idea that Amiga is only good for hackers, they're going to stay away in droves. |Colin Strasser University of Pennsylvania |strasser@eniac.seas.upenn.edu Moore School of Electrical Engineering |CI$: 72447,1650 Class of '90 -- Penn's 250th year! -- Phil Nelson . uunet!pyramid!oliveb!tymix!hobbes!pnelson . Voice:408-922-7508 A desire fulfilled is sweet to the soul; but to turn away from evil is an abomination to fools. -Proverbs 13:19