The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: LHBradley.email@example.com (Larry Bradley)
Subject: Re: Which basic compiler to buy?
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 04:58:31 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
X-Comments: This message was posted through Newsfeeds.com
X-Comments2: IMPORTANT: Newsfeeds.com does not condone, nor support, spam or any illegal or copyrighted postings.
X-Comments3: IMPORTANT: Under NO circumstances will postings containing illegal or copyrighted material through this service be tolerated!!
X-Report: Please report illegal or inappropriate use to You may also use our online abuse reporting from: http://www.newsfeeds.com/abuseform.htm
X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers, INCLUDING the body (DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS)
Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 100,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups.
It is possible to write terrible code in any language. And it is
possible to write perfectly useful, very readable code in any language
- even BASIC. The quality of a particular program is less a function
of the quality of the programming language than it is of the qulaity
of the programmer.
There is nothing inherently wrong with writing in assembler. A good,
disciplined programmer can write code that is very readable by someone
else. I spent my early programming years as a systems programmer,
modifying IBM mainframe operating systems, which were all written in
assembler - most of the time is was easy to read, because it was
written by people who knew what they were doing, and who had been
trained in how to do it right. But when it was done badly, it was a
nightmare to figre out.
Choice of programming languages is a religious issue.
Stef Mientki wrote:
>Steve Andrew wrote:
>> Michel Catudal wrote:
>>>Rich Webb wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 08:10:12 GMT, Parmin
>>>>>Would C language be easier to use? I dont know C language
>>>>>but am willing to learn if it is better for my use.
>>>>Although it has grown up a bit, originally C was described by its
>>>>authors as "portable assembly language" in that it was small, simple,
>>>>close to the hardware, and without very much in the way of
>>>>behind-the- scenes magic.
>>>>Discussions of programming languages often become religious wars so
>>>>I'll leave it with a paraphrase of an old saying (since I can't
>>>>remember the original or who said it!).
>>>>Basic is like the scissors that children use. They can be used to cut
>>>>out pretty much any shape you might want out of paper. They are also
>>>>safe, with blunt tips and not very sharp, so you're unlikely to
>>>>accidently injure yourself while using then.
>>>>C is like a surgeon's scalpel: just a handle and an edge. It can cut
>>>>practically anything and in the right hands it can perform miracles.
>>>>However, use it carelessly and you'll cut your own hands off.
>>>Basic can also be described as something that kids use before
>>>they learn how to program.
>> ....Or for programmers who cannot ;->
>You must confuse programming and coding :-)
Larry Bradley VE3CRX
Remove "removeme" from my e-mail address for direct mail
(use the e-mail address above to send directly to me)
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup