bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (10/16/89)
Awhile ago, in an article I can no longer access, I asked > >Just out of curiousity --- how many people do keep BASIC alive and >runnable on their MSDOS box? I was suprised at the near-unanimity of response I got. Personally, I choose to believe (in the face of the facts :-) that I merely didn't get any responses from the untold milliards who agreed with me... but in any case, for those who care, here's a short summary of the answers I saw. Most justifications, etc. have been removed for brevity --- I hope no one feels squashed. A remark in my own defense first --- a number of posters made the explicit or implicit assumption that *all* MSDOS distributions include BASIC, so that it is always there if you want it. I went back and double checked, and --> AT LEAST for my Zenith packages <-- none of versions 1.25, 2.11, 3.10 or 3.21 included BASIC. (On the other hand, Zenith may have included it in, for example, government-contract distributions.) ________________________________________ I keep Basic on my box. First, it game with my copy of Dos so it was natural to keep it. Second, I still occasionally use it to run an older PD program that I come into contact with. Mostly novelty stuff like a christmas carol program. I have never bought any of the basic compilers like quick basic. I suppose that if I did I might get rid of GWBASIC. But I doubt I ever will. ________________________________________ I have never used the Basic interpreter that comes with some clones. I have been using Microsoft QuickBasic 4.0 and with some minor exceptions I find it does quite a nice job. Lately with the advent of ________________________________________ It's useful for writing quick 5-line programs to check a recurrence I've derived by hand, for example. If I calculate that C(n) = O(n^2), I'll write a quickie to crank out C(1) through C(2000) and compare them against 1^2 through 2000^2. This will usually also reveal the constant of proportionality and I can then refine my bounds. And interactive BASIC is great as an expensive desk calculator! (Since I can go back and edit expressions, save values into variables, etc.) Agreed, BASIC doesn't do symbolic integration :-) But *serious* programming in BASIC? Gack. My Dad does it, but he's an engineer... ________________________________________ I regularly use 3 BASICs - GW (because its there); QuickBasic (all the functionality of Turbo Pascal, interfaces to MS Fortran unlike TP); and UBASIC (love those 2600 digits of precision; try matching *that* with TP:-) ________________________________________ I do. Actually, I have gotten away from BASIC, and into QuickBASIC. I happen to enjoy using it, when I have to. I mostly use C, though. ________________________________________ I thought BASIC was included in all MS-DOS packages. Not to say I use it regularly. I bought Turbo Pascal(R) when I first got interested in programming (on my PC that is) and then went to Trobo C(R-again) because I program in C here at work. ________________________________________ I do there are a few technical programs written by scientists and I have been to lazy to convert them into 'C' and I rarely use them. btw Turbo Pascal is heading the way BASIC did several years ago... ________________________________________ Cast my vote as a BASIC user. I use the MS Quick Basic though. I never did like Borland's envirnment and I hate Pascal. Use Quick C mainly. ________________________________________ I'm using QuickBasic 4.5 and I love it. Same here. ________________________________________ I use whichever language seems the best (easiest, fastest, most maintainable, most portable, etc) for the job at hand. For my own use for one-time conversion of small database files from one format to another, GWBASIC may be ideal - the slow execution is more than offset by the fast development. I frequently prototype pieces of an application in GWBASIC - the string handling is excellent, screen format is easy, and the file/record handling limitations are seldom critical to a demo. [other pros and cons...] ________________________________________ [following are much edited. No offense meant.] I beg to differ. I rarely use basic in any form. When I do It is never pretty. I have 3 different compiliers & like 6 different versions of basic. I strongly defend its use as a simple distribution media for software. 1. It's universal, every dos package comes with one, even if the manual isn't purchased, (license is with dos, not the manual/documentation purchase). 2. No Matter What ANY[one] MAY/DOES prefer, the program can be read & deciphered (to what-ever extent desired/required) by any dolt that can read english and think a slight amount. [argument in favor of ASCII listings for transmission portability omitted.] When everything goes as it should, I don't even think twice, but when it's bad, it's soo annoyyyingggg, I could commit a capitol offense. Ya know what I mean ? Face it, basic may be ..............., but it gets the job done IN THIS CASE. The argument that the extra overhead wastes bandwidth, while seeming true and unerringly logic is clear, you should see the volume & number of trouble reports & help questions that we have on our local extensions of the news groups, and even the inquiring ones netwide. These poor (??) devils are wasting soo much bandwidth that the extra up front on the posting is minor. ________________________________________ I do agree with the need for simplicity & brevity for these types of basic programs. And actually if you look at the uuencode.bas program, it like others should all be in this example, Only has a couple of simple instruction lines, and a lot of data. When it's run, it creates the .com or .exe program file. Then the basic file is of no further use. You would only need to 'stumble' through the basic but once. (Running almost any actual program from basic as a matter of course is abysmal. But in this case, the basic program just makes the compiled file. Sort of a universal dos kermit or ftp that is simple and cheap. The one point about basic, however, is that as far as I know, EVERYONE included it with dos. Even ZENITH, at least every zenith we bought, with dos & without basic, & everyone else's too. Basic is included on the DOS distribution &/or Supplemental distribution disk. The basic manual was extra. If you know the zenith from experience, what dos version & or for what machine did you buy. I would like to know in case I run into it myself. (actually I do know that zenith dos 1.01 (or was that 1.10) was unbundled on the distribution, basic not included, but it is in rom on those old dos 1 zeniths (as well as all ibm's). ________________________________________ THE END