From: "Frank Bemelman"
References: <3D9F33B3.E4B561BB@webaccess.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3D9F5649.57327EDF@webaccess.net>
Subject: Re: Basic Stamp vs Pic processors
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 02:24:33 +0200
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
Organization: EuroNet Internet
NNTP-Posting-Date: 06 Oct 2002 00:24:41 GMT
"Chuck Simmons" schreef in bericht
> Frank Bemelman wrote:
> > 'Modern' basics don't use linenumbers, so you write something
> > like 'gosub myfunction' etc. I think it can be as structured
> > as you want it to be. You are right about the spaghetticode,
> > which tells more about the programmer than the language. OTH,
> > nothing wrong with the goto statement, which is used far too
> > *less* by programmers that have between, eh, 2-4 yrs of
> > experience. Ditto for setjmp() etc. But I'm drifting off.
> > I think the OP should investigate that PicBasic he mentions, so
> > he can use the PIC's he already has. I know that the first generation
> > of basicstamps used a PIC too. I once used one at home, to control
> > my gardenlights. Very easy to use. The later basicstamp2 uses a
> > scenix/ubicom processor IIRC. This is a *very* fast processor, so even
> > with an interpreted tokenized basic, and running plain stupid
> > basiccode it should do miracles, I'd guess. It must be much faster
> > than the first basicstamp, but perhaps comparable to any PIC running
> > *compiled* picbasic.
> > Whether these PIC's or 'Stamps' are fit for their task, also depends
> > a lot on the programmer's skills.
> We are agreed that the OP should take a very close look at PicBasic
> however much I dislike Basic.
> The loss of line numbers from Basic would seem to render it purposeless.
> After all, Basic was invented to teach students how to increment line
Well, since it still is an interpreted language in most cases, so you have
the advantage that it doesn't crash the system. It can safely escape,
complaining about an undesired situation occured at runtime etc. Without the
linenumbers it is a lot like other procedural languages, like pascal or C.
> The "goto" statement has always been incomplete. It hardly makes sense
> without a "comefrom" to complement it.
> Back in about 1974, I was learning Forth and Fortran at the same time.
> Forth, at that time, did not have anything resembling a "goto" even in
> the built in Forth assembler for the underlying machine. Fortran,
> naturally, is written entirely with "goto" and "gosub.' You can
> literally spend weeks writing "gosub" and "goto" before you finally get
> around to writing a single statement that does anything useful. Forth,
> in contrast, lacking the "goto" and "gosub" statements puts the
> programmer under immense preasure to get to the point. This is highly
> unwelcome if you are used to programing by copy/pasting miles of "goto"
> and "gosub" statements. Naturally, when the need for Fortran in my life
> ended, I forgot it within an hour of writing the last statement I wrote
> in it.
> In the late 1970s, I was a test engineer at Burr-Brown Research. The
> automated test equipment used Basic because it was a standard portable
> language. The result was that the entire test engineering department
> spent all of its time converting test programs from one Basic to
> another. The massive task was the result of the slight differences
> between one Basic and another. When I left Burr-Brown, I vowed never to
> write another line of Basic ever.
> Of the high level languages, Forth and C are my favorites. Unlike
> Pascal, C allows you to shoot yourself in the foot. This latter ability,
> oddly, is precisely where C and Forth derive their great power. A
> language that is so anal that it won't let you do something stupid tends
> to be incapable of doing anything useful.
> Years ago, assembly language was about all there was. You used it and
> you were happy (maybe). Assembly language, though very primative,
> refines the art of shooting yourself in the foot. The legends of real
> programmers come from the days when assembler was king. Today, assembly
> language is for snobs or so it would seem. I think this is a lot like
> people who work in offices dressing like cowboys. The basic trouble is
> that the horse is dead and no amount of flogging will resurrect it.
> These days, I write a lot of assembly but I consider it rather a pain.
> Probably because I have impeccable aim at my foot. I tend to like Perl
> and will write C when I can. Assembly language and migrains seem to be
In my book, assembly is dead. C has become an excellent replacement, now
that processors have become much faster - and cheaper. Programmable logic
has also helped making assembly become redundant. Stuff that requires
speed can often be isolated enough into function blocks that can be
with programmable logic. The less speed-demanding stuff can be done all in
C/C++. I never liked Forth, I tried it a couple of times, but it's too stack
oriented for me, I have difficulties translating my 'problems' into Forth.
(remove 'x' & .invalid when sending email)