carpent@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Todd Carpenter) (06/16/90)
In article <1990Jun14.042521.12222@agate.berkeley.edu> laba-1ei@e260-3c.berkeley.edu (Joseph Chung) writes: 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 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? Thank you very much, both of you wonderful people, for starting yet another senseless language discussion going on in the wrong newsgroup. If you have comments like these, PLEASE email them so it doesn't start such annoying threads. The original poster had a valid point. The followups are a waste. Why didn't I email this to the offenders? To hopefully forestall those who would continue this thread. Yes, you are most welcome to EMAIL to me explaining why such discussion is useful in the Amiga group instead of a language group. Email to: carpent@src.honeywell.com No, these comments in no way represent the supplier of the account from which I am posting. But you knew that, didn't you?