|
Post by Tomaaz on Dec 28, 2020 15:58:36 GMT -6
Well smallBasic is not better than QB64 because from the begining is full of strange bugs ... Could you show examples of these "strange bugs"? Here is a sample of SmallBasic code: x = [1, 2, 15, 28, 3, 4, 5, 6] y = x sort y if 15 in y print "There is 15 in array y" endif for l in y print l next append x , 10000 print x print y Output: There is 15 in array y 1 2 3 4 5 6 15 28 [1,2,15,28,3,4,5,6,10000] [1,2,3,4,5,6,15,28]
The whole thing is clean, easy to write and understand. No ugly sigils. Flexible arrays, generic for (of course, you can use numeric one, if you wish), in operator, square brackets for arrays... This is definitely more modern BASIC than QB64. The latter may be faster and have more users, but it's extremely old school dialect and that is what I meant (I didn't use word "better").
|
|
|
Post by rosy on Dec 28, 2020 17:36:48 GMT -6
A ha .. So it's better because it has square brackets and it's slower ...
What about this C ...?
|
|
|
Post by Tomaaz on Dec 28, 2020 18:38:10 GMT -6
Who said it was better? I didn't. I was talking about popularity and design (sticking to old school rules vs more modern approach). But you know what? Since you and Aurel desperately want to make this discussion about what's better and what's worse I'm gonna share my opinion (I hope I'm entitled to have one, even if I disagree with you, right?). Yes, it is better. Why? Read my previous post, again. BTW RCBasic is slower than QB64 and uses square braces. Does it automatically make it worse? What's your point? You ignore my main arguments and focus on something that, accidently, applies to RCBasic, the language this forum is dedicated to. Really?
|
|
|
Post by rosy on Dec 30, 2020 7:55:40 GMT -6
I do not know what you mean. So what are you talking about this for? "Obsolete" most people understand as inferior ...
If one has square brackets and the other has round brackets, that makes matters worse, because you have to be aware of it and get it wrong. Slower also means worse.
Besides, you don't get the gist of the matter.
It is one thing to compare dialects and another thing to talk about Basic in general.
I have already been paying attention to the problem of many Basic variants. Instead of sticking to the standard and expanding it, people come up with new variations and cause confusion. Basic dialects compete with each other rather than with other languages.
|
|
|
Post by Tomaaz on Dec 30, 2020 8:49:25 GMT -6
Who said "obsolete"? I said "old-school". If someone loves line numbers and wants to use them, then it's their choice, not mine. But it good to know the difference between old-school syntax and something more modern. Round brackets for arrays is a bad idea, because round brackets are used for functions. Generic for is cleaner than numeric one (what's wrong with having them both for different scenarios?) and flexible arrays are obviously better, because you can do everything you can do with arrays in old-school BASIC plus much more. Don't tell me you're gonna argue against in operator which makes much easier and faster to check if something is already in an array without looping over it.
Speed. QB64 is faster with simple looping and calculations, but when string and array processing is required, SmallBasic could be easily the winner (even if it's only an interpreter). Long time ago we had this challenge on basicprogramming forum. The task was to calculate all and unique words in a large text file, then count how many times each unique word appears in the text, sort the result by occurrence and save it to the file. SmallBasic needs under 10 sec. to compete this task. To write this program you need maybe 10 min. I wouldn't expect QB64 to be much faster in this case and I don't want to think how much time you would have to spend to implement the solution in it. You see - that's the problem. For many people BASIC is all about drawing shapes in calculated patterns or making retro games. There is a whole programming world outside these areas.
|
|
|
Post by rosy on Dec 30, 2020 9:47:22 GMT -6
I used rounds all my life and I didn't mind the functions ... I didn't say that FOR's additional capabilities are wrong, although I may find arguments against ...
Once you say Basic is obsolete, and in a moment you name "modern" variations of it. So I still don't know what you mean ...
|
|
|
Post by Tomaaz on Dec 30, 2020 11:17:45 GMT -6
You must be reading someone else's posts. Once again - I never said BASIC was obsolete. I said that in BASIC family there are really old-school dialects (QB64, FreeBASIC) that stick to old-fashioned syntax and more modern ones (BaCon, SmallBasic) that are trying to adopt features succesfully implemented in other languages. I'm not trying to tell you which one you should use. That is enterily up to you. But I think it's good to know that there is choice. I also believe that BASIC doesn't have a chance to become a mainstream (or even more popular) language, definitely not if the most popular dialects are those sticking to old school design. They cannot compete with modern languages in any areas apart from drawing circles and rectangles or creating simple retro games. You may disagree with me. That's fine. But please, don't ask me to explain this once again. And don't say I called BASIC obsolete. It looks like you're trying to put in my mouth what you believe is today's general opinion about BASIC and see me as someone who agrees 100% with this opinion and simply believes BASIC is obsolete and crap. I can asure you that my "relationship" with BASIC is more complex. I've helped with websites for some dialects and tried to make them more popular by posting about them in many places. Don't treat me like I'm some kind of Pythonista who comes here only to tell you that BASIC is obsolete junk. To be honest there were several BASIC users who left after trying other languages and never looked back, but I'm not one of them.
|
|
|
Post by rosy on Dec 30, 2020 14:11:53 GMT -6
I don't know what is the difference between outdated and old-fashioned. If you want to play words, it's not with me ...
I think this SmallBasic still has the traditional syntax, just with the addition of the features you like.
And if modernity is to consist, for example, in the fact that I have to keep an eye on my entrance or use some kind of clamps, then I prefer old-fashionedness. Line numbering has not been used for a long time ...
|
|
|
Post by Tomaaz on Dec 30, 2020 16:29:05 GMT -6
Well, if you don't understand the difference beetween "old-school" and "obsolete" then the whole discussion doesn't make sense. C is an old-school language, but it's not obsolete. Genie is a modern language, but it's obsolete.
Line numbers were part of very traditional BASIC syntax, but when programs got bigger and more complex people realized that it wasn't the best idea and, by getting rid of them, made BASIC more... modern. I've met programmers who used to say the real BASIC was the one with line numbers. Now you're telling me that the real BASIC is the one with sigils, round braces for everything and limited arrays.
If SmallBasic has a traditional BASIC syntax, so does... Lua, Ruby or even Python. There is more similarities between SmallBasic and Lua than between SmallBasic and QB64.
I had discussions like that before and I'm tired of repeating myself. The only way BASIC can survive is to evolve. To adjust to the always changing computer landscape. The same way it did when the line numbers were dropped. Without it BASIC will never gain popularity. No chance.
|
|
|
Post by rosy on Dec 30, 2020 18:04:39 GMT -6
It actually makes no sense ...
|
|
|
Post by Tomaaz on Dec 31, 2020 5:47:24 GMT -6
Imagine a program that generates a random number from 1 to 3. If the number is 1 then it prints "You say BASIC is obsolete. C language obsolete, too?". If the number is 2 then it prints "I still don't understand what you meant". And if the number is 3 it prints "It actually makes no sense". Having a discussion with that program would be as exciting as talking to you. So, forgive me, but I'm not gonna waste my time anymore.
|
|
|
Post by johnno56 on Jan 1, 2021 4:24:25 GMT -6
My two cents.
Outdated: No longer in use or fashionable; outmoded; antiquated. Obsolete: No longer in general use; fallen into disuse. Old School: Advocates or supporters of established custom or of conservatism.
I find dictionary.com enlightening.
On the 1st of may (at 4am) in 1964, Basic was first successfully used to run programs on the Dartmouth College's General Electric computer system. About 57 years ago if I am not mistaken. Why do you think that Basic (in it's various forms) is still in use today? If it was 'outdated' or 'obsolete' it would have been relegated to computer archives decades ago.
"I" am Old School because I support an "established custom". Basic is not.
We can argue about semantics; definitions of words; Basic being useful until we a blue in the face.
We have a choice. Use Basic or not. If not, choose a language that you feel "at home" with. For those of us who choose Basic, perhaps instead of 'picking holes' in the various dialects, we could best make use of our time in discussing what we can actually "do" with Basic?
Sorry. I'm just tied of watching members on forums not "getting along" and watching relationships fall apart.
I need coffee...
|
|
|
Post by aurel on Jan 1, 2021 5:20:53 GMT -6
Looks to me that he don't understand many things...he he
|
|
|
Post by Tomaaz on Jan 1, 2021 6:00:10 GMT -6
"old-school" - characteristic or evocative of an earlier or original style, manner, or form
"old-school" - old fashioned ideas or approach compared to current trends
Both are good description of traditional BASIC.
For me the whole discussion is about pointless obsession with statistics. BASIC is not popular anymore and for 99.99% the situation is not gonna change in the future. I believe that people should always explain why they believe what they believe. So, I did. But main main point is - stop pointless discussions about statistics and BASIC popularity (I can see that another one has been started already) and simply enjoy coding in RcBasic which is a fantastic retro language for hobbyists and BASIC lovers.
|
|
|
Post by johnno56 on Jan 1, 2021 23:57:23 GMT -6
Ageed. Too much time and effort has been spent of praising the attributes of this Basic or that Basic. I always have and will continue to be a user of Basic because I enjoy it so much. I may not be very good at it, but to me that doesn't matter, Basic will never be as popular as it once was but that will not change my opinion of Basic. I also agree that RC is a great 'retro' language as well.
Well, I seem to be going around in circles, such that my opinions of Basic must begin to sound monotonous verging on the side of boring... lol
You must be tired of listening to me talk about Basic... I know because I am... lol
May I suggest that we stop talking and start doing? Perhaps we can 'brainstorm' to come up the a collaborative project?
Open to suggestions...
J
|
|