From: "Tom Del Rosso"
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Which basic compiler to buy?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 04:13:38 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 04:13:38 GMT
"Steve Andrew" wrote in
> Richard Steven Walz wrote:
> > In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> > Michel Catudal wrote:
> >> Rich Webb wrote:
> >>> 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.
> Looks like somebody else who tried to learn C, and found it a bit
> BASIC abilities ;->
As Rich Webb said above, C was designed to be a portable machine
language, but its operands were designed around the instruction set of
the PDP-11, which had no support for strings. As a result, in C you
have to call a function merely to test the equality of two strings. We
have now had, since 25 years ago, which was less than 10 years after C
was born, microprocessors (and I assume mainframes too) with opcodes
that handle strings, but C didn't even become popular until after that,
and it was already obsolete.
I'm not claiming that BASIC is an option for most development, but with
all the experience that computer science has behind it, we should have
something better than C by now. And I don't mean C#.