From: "Michael A. Terrell"
Subject: Re: Which basic compiler to buy?
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:58:13 -0500
Organization: Have you seen my bench? No, really! Where is it?
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win95; U)
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Richard Steven Walz) wrote in message news:<email@example.com>...
> > In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> > Michel Catudal wrote:
> > >Rich Webb wrote:
> > >
> > >> Discussions of programming languages often become religious wars so I'll
> Its the same with anything in the electronics industry, Kinda like the
> PIC/AVR/Zilog debate. They all achieve the same thing in the end, its
> user preference in the end that makes one better than the other (some
> exclusions on real badly designed product). Each has its merits,
> likewise each has its problems.
> For someone getting into high level languages, basic is would have to
> be the choice because it is a lot easier to come to speed. However, if
> you were to start a high level luanguage for use in a commercial
> environment, then you would be better offer learning C because it more
> widely suported in professional circles. I know of some micro's that
> only support C, no basic compilers available for them. Off the top of
> my head, I think Rabbit and NEC are two off them (probably have basic
> now though).
> As for portability, well thats up to the programmer. Poorly written C
> is no more portable than poorly written basic or ASM. Its all in the
> hands of the programmer as to how well the program is written. Good
> code should not even require documenting.....As I was quoted recently
> when asking for a document on some C++ code, "use the source luke"
> (revised quote from starwars).
I prefer "May the farce be with you" :)
Michael A. Terrell