I have the best memories of programming in BASIC on DOS 6.22 with Win 3.11.
I remember having studied the whole language documentation that came with the IDE, and had tried every single one of the examples that were included there.
I learned most of everything I know about algorithms and programming techinques through various BASIC projects.
I mostly came up with text-based games that I ("kindly") forced my family to try out (long before internet was a thing, where I live...).
I don't know why, but I see people taking BASIC for a unworthy substitute of
a greater example of a language, as maybe C++ or Java.
I understand there are things you can do with C++ you can't do in BASIC, but still there's a lot you do can do...
For instance, I remember having a lot of fun defining my own types and using them in my own code in a few projects, sort of coming up with my own "libraries"...
That experience made it kinda easier to jump into OOP and figure out how to
use clases and objects... I know that last argument could sound "awkward" to some, but it makes a lot of sense to me... :D
Anyway, what's anyones thoughts on this? Have you any experience with BASIC? Was it also you first programming language??
Cheers!

Malvinas.

Islas Malvinas, siempre Argentinas!

... Islas Malvinas, siempre Argentinas.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/64)
* Origin: The Vault BBS (21:4/167)

On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 22:07:17 -0300
"Malvinas" (21:4/167) <Malvinas@f167.n4.z21.fidonet> wrote:

I have the best memories of programming in BASIC on DOS 6.22 with Win
3.11. I remember having studied the whole language documentation that
came with the IDE, and had tried every single one of the examples
that were included there. I learned most of everything I know about algorithms and programming techinques through various BASIC projects.
I mostly came up with text-based games that I ("kindly") forced my
family to try out (long before internet was a thing, where I
live...). I don't know why, but I see people taking BASIC for a
unworthy substitute of a greater example of a language, as maybe C++
or Java. I understand there are things you can do with C++ you can't
do in BASIC, but still there's a lot you do can do... For instance, I remember having a lot of fun defining my own types and using them in
my own code in a few projects, sort of coming up with my own
"libraries"... That experience made it kinda easier to jump into OOP
and figure out how to use clases and objects... I know that last
argument could sound "awkward" to some, but it makes a lot of sense
to me... :D Anyway, what's anyones thoughts on this? Have you any
experience with BASIC? Was it also you first programming language??
Cheers!

Given the limited amount of memory available to older 8 bit home
orientated micros, BASIC is an easy to learn and easy to understand
language. It's a jumping point for people to understand the basics of programming, flow control, subroutines and functions to a limited
degree, filesystem i/o etc, that they can apply to other languages as
they learn them.
--
End Of The Line BBS - Plano, TX
telnet endofthelinebbs.com 23
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com (21:2/101)

Given the limited amount of memory available to older 8 bit home orientated micros, BASIC is an easy to learn and easy to understand language. It's a jumping point for people to understand the basics of programming, flow control, subroutines and functions to a limited
degree, filesystem i/o etc, that they can apply to other languages as
they learn them.

All languages are limited in one way or another...
What would you say is the least limited programming language?
Thank you for your kind reply, Nigel.

Malvinas.

Islas Malvinas, siempre Argentinas!

... Islas Malvinas, siempre Argentinas.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/64)
* Origin: The Vault BBS (21:4/167)

Re: Is BASIC to be regarded as less than reputable prog lang?
By: Malvinas to All on Sat Jul 06 2024 10:07 pm

know why, but I see people taking BASIC for a unworthy substitute of a greater example of a language, as maybe C++ or Java. I understand there are things you can do with C++ you can't do in BASIC, but still there's a lot you do can do...

I think BASIC was intended as a way to learn programming, and perhaps not as a language to use for serious day-to-day work. BASIC stands for Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code - "Beginner's" being the key word.

Nightfox
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)

(...) BASIC stands for
Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code - "Beginner's" being
the key word.

Nightfox

IIRC, when Borland bought it, they changed the "Basic" word to "Borland's"... and published a version accompanied by a compiler that could produce .exe files... I believe it was BASIC 4.7.
I *always* thought BASIC not to be "basic", or "beginner's language", despite the name or the fame it had (and seems it still has).
If you try, you'll find amazing things done in BASIC and in other "languages" aswel, like "an .mp3 player in .bat batch file format"... crazy things like that, you couldn't believe it's possible but someone has done it.
You know, kinda the spirit of this whole '80ish's computer scene' thing was using something not for what it was intended to, but for what you meant it to do...
I know, I kinda go all the way dogmatic when posing a statement by BASIC's side.

Malvinas.

Islas Malvinas, siempre Argentinas!

... Islas Malvinas, siempre Argentinas.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/64)
* Origin: The Vault BBS (21:4/167)

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 11:46:27 -0300
"Malvinas" (21:4/167) <Malvinas@f167.n4.z21.fidonet> wrote:

Given the limited amount of memory available to older 8 bit home orientated micros, BASIC is an easy to learn and easy to
understand language. It's a jumping point for people to
understand the basics of programming, flow control, subroutines
and functions to a limited degree, filesystem i/o etc, that they
can apply to other languages as they learn them.

All languages are limited in one way or another...
What would you say is the least limited programming language?
Thank you for your kind reply, Nigel.

Malvinas.

Islas Malvinas, siempre Argentinas!

... Islas Malvinas, siempre Argentinas.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/64)
* Origin: The Vault BBS (21:4/167)

I don't know because I don't know all programming languages. Languages
are usually only limited to the amount you know about them. For
example, You can do in PERL pretty much anything you can do in C, I
guess, except PERL is likely to be much slower, but c is going to
require more code.
--
End Of The Line BBS - Plano, TX
telnet endofthelinebbs.com 23
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com (21:2/101)

Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code - "Beginner's" being
the key word.

thought BASIC not to be "basic", or "beginner's language", despite
the name or the fame it had (and seems it still has). If you try,
you'll find amazing things done in BASIC and in other "languages"
aswel, like "an .mp3 player in .bat batch file format"... crazy

Its like a lot of things... sure you can do stuff with it, is it the best
tool in the shed probably not.

Depends on what you call basic too. I think what most of us think of as
BASIC, especially back in 8 bit days, is going to be some version of MS-BASIC with line numbers, that runs through an interpreter. These had the bonus of being pretty small and made your computer somewhat useful pretty much out of the box. Its pretty slow if you need something approaching the speed of the machine its running on though. There was also concern that people learnt bad habits with this kind of language and it didn't cross over to other languages very well.

Structured basic is a bit different, no line numbers, an abiliy to be
compiled rather than interpreted. To be honest I don't know a lot more about it, I've never used it. This is put together more like other structured languages, and probably leant itself to being a primer for other languages.

Spec


*** THE READER V4.50 [freeware]
--- SuperBBS v1.17-3 (Eval)
* Origin: A camel is a horse designed by a committee. (21:3/101)

10?"BASIC IS SLOW":goto 10

:P


*** THE READER V4.50 [freeware]
--- SuperBBS v1.17-3 (Eval)
* Origin: A camel is a horse designed by a committee. (21:3/101)

I still write Atari Basic programs on my Atari 8-bit machines (although
most of the time, I am running an emulator on my PC in a Windows XP
virtual machine.)

I then compile the Basic programs using the MMG compiler so I can run
them from the SpartaDOS command-line.

Most of these programs are utilities like display drive info for 15
drives at a time, or scan floppies and HDDs for bad sectors, etc.

It's a hobby and I love it...

--- RATSoft/FIDO v09.14.95 [JetMail 1.01]
* Origin: STar Fleet HQ - Real Atari! bbs.sfhqbbs.org:5983 (21:3/171.0)

Re: Re: Is BASIC to be regarded as less than reputable prog lang?
By: Malvinas to Nightfox on Sun Jul 07 2024 09:14 pm

(...) BASIC stands for
Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code - "Beginner's" being the
key word.

IIRC, when Borland bought it, they changed the "Basic" word to "Borland's"... and published a version accompanied by a compiler that could produce .exe files... I believe it was BASIC 4.7.

What is "it"? Microsoft QBASIC? Or some other BASIC compiler?

you'll find amazing things done in BASIC and in other "languages" aswel, like "an .mp3 player in .bat batch file format"... crazy things like that,

I'm not quite sure I understand.. Is "an .mp3 player in .bat batch file format" the name of the software? Also, batch language is not BASIC.

Nightfox
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)

Re: Is BASIC to be regarded as less than reputable prog lang?
By: Malvinas to All on Sat Jul 06 2024 22:07:17

Hi, Malvinas.

Anyway, what's anyones thoughts on this? Have you any experience with BASIC? Was it also you first programming language??

For me, BASIC was my first programming language. I believe the first one I really used was GW-BASIC in DOS - if only I'd read some kind of guide on programming style / techniques instead of just the keyword reference... maybe I could have made some nice code!

I tried to self teach C and Pascal, which didn't go well, then I was taught both again in university and suddenly things made sense! Pointers... structures... now I can do some real programming!

I hadn't done much since then, 20 years or so, then I got out some old computers from the garage and started trying to use BASIC. It drove me *mad*, so different. But thankfully both the computers used BBC BASIC, which has a very good reputation, lets you mess around with pointers and system calls easily and also has an in-built assembler. So mostly today I just use BASIC to build the program structure, then convert it all to assembler once it works.

BobW
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: >>> Magnum BBS <<< - bbs.magnum.uk.net (21:1/205)

I tried to self teach C and Pascal, which didn't go well, then I was taught both again in university and suddenly things made sense! Pointers... structures... now I can do some real programming!

I hadn't done much since then, 20 years or so, then I got out some old computers from the garage and started trying to use BASIC. It drove me *mad*, so different. But thankfully both the computers used BBC BASIC, which has a very good reputation, lets you mess around with pointers and system calls easily and also has an in-built assembler. So mostly today

Structures and pointers are not *the only REAL* programming...
Original GW-BASIC had PEEK and POKE which were a 'weird' form of pointers... Look, I currently teach a programming course for post-highschool adult students, and after pseudo-code and right before jumping into SQL and PHP we make a quick stop-by BASIC. We use a DOS-Box emulator that comes packed with BASIC right in the same .zip. I usually tell my students to propose a videogame they'd like to create and I "help" them make it (I try to intervene and tell them what to do the least I can), last time they wanted to make a "Battleship game (not sure that's the right name for that game in english, you know that game where people say out loud combinations of letters and numbers and find coordinates in the board and mark down strikes on enemy ships)", and we couldn't find a better suited language for that than BASIC, which comes fully equipped with a fairly robust set of tools and instructions to control what goes on screen. This really speeds up creating "text mode turn-based or action games", and this was the exact case.
There's a lot to learn about coding technique and style from *any* language, actually, IMHO.

Malvians

Islas Malvinas, siempre Argentinas!

... Islas Malvinas, siempre Argentinas.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/64)
* Origin: The Vault BBS (21:4/167)

Re: Re: Is BASIC to be regarded as less than reputable prog lang?
By: Malvinas to Bob Worm on Tue Jul 09 2024 20:29:24

Hi, Malvinas.

Structures and pointers are not *the only REAL* programming...
Original GW-BASIC had PEEK and POKE which were a 'weird' form of pointers...

Yes, PEEK and POKE are a (clumsy) way to do pointers, I'm sure there's some way to find the address of a variable in most BASICs, then you have DIM for some kind of memory reservation. BBC BASIC has some nice pointer shortcuts in it, e.g. ?bla dereferences the byte at bla, or bla?10 dereferences the byte at bla+10. Then there's ! for words.

to make a "Battleship game (not sure that's the right name for that game in english

Yes, exactly right :)

we couldn't find a better suited language for that
than BASIC, which comes fully equipped with a fairly robust set of tools and instructions to control what goes on screen. This really speeds up creating "text mode turn-based or action games", and this was the exact case.

That's a great example of when BASIC makes sense. I suppose nowadays they teach that using Python but BASIC would probably be safer and less frustrating.

Would I want to program a database or a BBS in BASIC, though? Probably not. As soon as you start pushing lots of data around you would probably want a different language.

There's a lot to learn about coding technique and style from *any* language, actually, IMHO.

I agree, however a lot of BASICs don't allow for a lot of the techniques or are extremely limited in, e.g. how many layers of recursion you can do. Early BASICs didn't do functions / procedures so stuff got messy fast.

BobW
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: >>> Magnum BBS <<< - bbs.magnum.uk.net (21:1/205)

On 06 Jul 2024, Malvinas said the following...

Anyway, what's anyones thoughts on this? Have you any experience with BASIC? Was it also you first programming language??

All the "little computers" used basic when I started. The mainframes ran cobol or fortran, but because the wee little computers and early PCs were so limited, that the Basic Interpreter was what you used.

Wasn't long until that early release of Turbo-Pascal changed my world, relegating Basic to just another script-language.

Still works the treat in certain instances.

--- Steve K9ZW via SPOT BBS

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 2022/07/15 (Linux/64)
* Origin: SPOT BBS / k9zw (21:1/224)

On 09 Jul 2024 at 08:29p, Malvinas pondered and said...

couldn't find a better suited language for that than BASIC, which comes fully equipped with a fairly robust set of tools and instructions to control what goes on screen. This really speeds up creating "text mode turn-based or action games", and this was the exact case. There's a lot
to learn about coding technique and style from *any* language, actually, IMHO.

I agree that one can learn a lot from different languages,
but honestly this sort of use-case feels like exactly the sort
of thing that logo would be better at than BASIC.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

Hi, Malvinas.

Hi BobW, how are you!!

do. Early BASICs didn't do functions / procedures so stuff got messy
fast.

I have to admit that, reply after reply to this post, I came to realize that when *I* say BASIC, I mean "the BASIC I grew up with and learned to use" back in the day, which was QBasic 1.1, which came pre-installed with the OS. *That* version of BASIC did do functions / procedures, and was quite versatile!! Moreover, it's very much true that when you want to move some greater amounts of data around, things get hairy pretty soon...

Malvinas

PS: Python for a Battleship game!! That's a challenge for my students (and me, of course)!

Islas Malvinas, siempre Argentinas!

... Islas Malvinas, siempre Argentinas.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/64)
* Origin: The Vault BBS (21:4/167)

I agree that one can learn a lot from different languages,
but honestly this sort of use-case feels like exactly the sort
of thing that logo would be better at than BASIC.

Yea, you're probably right, but the thing is, once you accomplish something like a Battleship game, you don't just get a Battleship game, you also know a lot of BASIC, which enables you to go on and try anything else *on BASIC*... whereas LOGO wouldn't let you get too far from "a Battleship game"....

Malvinas.

Islas Malvinas, siempre Argentinas!

... Islas Malvinas, siempre Argentinas.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/64)
* Origin: The Vault BBS (21:4/167)

Re: Re: Is BASIC to be regarded as less than reputable prog lang?
By: Malvinas to Bob Worm on Thu Jul 11 2024 14:06:40

Hi, Malvinas.

I hope you are having a good day so far.

I have to admit that, reply after reply to this post, I came to realize that when *I* say BASIC, I mean "the BASIC I grew up with and learned to use" back in the day, which was QBasic 1.1, which came pre-installed with the OS.

Ah, that makes more sense. If I remember correctly, QBasic didn't even require you to use line numbers :) I suppose QBasic *can* be used to teach a lot more programming concepts, since those features are actually in the language!

BobW
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: >>> Magnum BBS <<< - bbs.magnum.uk.net (21:1/205)

(...) I suppose QBasic *can* be used to
teach a lot more programming concepts, since those features are actually in the language!

BobW

Exactly! That's what I meant from the beginning when considering BASIC an all-around fully equipped programming language... I'm glad we finally got around to it. Nice talking to you and this beautiful community I'm recently beginning to get to know.
Cheers!!

Malvinas.

Islas Malvinas, siempre Argentinas!

... Islas Malvinas, siempre Argentinas.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/64)
* Origin: The Vault BBS (21:4/167)

On 11 Jul 2024 at 02:12p, Malvinas pondered and said...

I agree that one can learn a lot from different languages,
but honestly this sort of use-case feels like exactly the sort
of thing that logo would be better at than BASIC.

Yea, you're probably right, but the thing is, once you accomplish something like a Battleship game, you don't just get a Battleship game, you also know a lot of BASIC, which enables you to go on and try
anything else *on BASIC*... whereas LOGO wouldn't let you get too far
from "a Battleship game"....

Not true! LOGO is actually a dialect of Lisp, and as such,
it's incredibly powerful. People can, and have, written very
robust, complex programs in LOGO; in many ways, it is superior
to BASIC as a programming language (saner rules around scoping
and expressions, for instance).

Unfortunately, few people _learned_ LOGO as a Lisp; most never
got beyond drawing a few basic shapes with the turtle. For
those who did, many could not wrap their heads around functional-
style programming.

More's the pity: it's actually a very nice language.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

(...) LOGO is actually a dialect of Lisp, and as such,
it's incredibly powerful.

Daaaamn.. I didn't know that...

Unfortunately, few people _learned_ LOGO as a Lisp; most never
got beyond drawing a few basic shapes with the turtle. For
those who did, many could not wrap their heads around functional-
style programming.

I use it for programming introduction only in the first two or three classes in my course, and stop using it when students learn how to do FOR[] loops, then move on to pseudo code... Maybe I should stick to LOGO a little longer....
Really didn't know that about LOGO. That's great to know.
Malvinas.

Islas Malvinas, siempre Argentinas!

... Islas Malvinas, siempre Argentinas.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/64)
* Origin: The Vault BBS (21:4/167)

Re: Re: Is BASIC to be regarded as less than reputable prog lang?
By: tenser to Malvinas on Sun Jul 14 2024 04:21:40

Hi, Tenser.

Not true! LOGO is actually a dialect of Lisp, and as such,
it's incredibly powerful.

I did not know that. My primary school had the turtle things but through my entire school career I never saw one in use. Another fine waste of tax money :)

many could not wrap their heads around functional-
style programming.

Eughhh... flashbacks to university... I am not surprised people struggle with it, I still remember the horrors of trying to master depth-first and breadth-first algorithms using only statements of truth. That was in HUGS, a variant of Haskell - not sure if LISP is easier or harder than that?

BobW
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: >>> Magnum BBS <<< - bbs.magnum.uk.net (21:1/205)

On 13 Jul 2024 at 09:58p, Bob Worm pondered and said...

Not true! LOGO is actually a dialect of Lisp, and as such,
it's incredibly powerful.

I did not know that. My primary school had the turtle things but through my entire school career I never saw one in use. Another fine waste of
tax money :)

Yeah, this speaks to the history of the thing. I was at MIT
for a talk about the PDP-10 a few months ago, and spoke with
some of the folks who were principle's in Papert's group about
LOGO a bit. Papert was very interested in epistemology and
constructivist ideas about education. He thought computers
would be a good vehicle for students to construct knowledge
about geometry (specifically), math (generally) and computation.
LOGO was a distillation of the ideas of Lisp, where the basic
primitive is a list, in a form that he thought would be
accessible to children; the robot turtle (which was actually a
real robot, connected to the PDP-10 via a serial cable) was
part of that. He wrote about much of this in the book, "Mindstorms".

The problem was that, while the ideas are powerful, you have to
be an expert at computers to successfully transfer them to
computers, and where I think the LOGO effort failed was in
getting _teachers_ well-enoughed versed in the technology _and_
the underly pedagogical theory to be able to use it successfully.

Think of it: these computer scientists from MIT show up in a
school with a microcomputer, and they type a command that draws
a square on the screen; in the early 1980s, that must have been
mindblowing. They exalt the virtues of teaching programming in
this new-fangled language to a bunch of teachers who _probably_
grew up learning about filing cabinets and manual typewriters.
Everyone's excited about the prospects, but then the MIT people
go back to MIT, and the teachers have no idea how to even begin
to approach teaching themselves programming, let alone programming
in Lisp. Pretty much all they know is how to draw a square on the
screen. Now plop them in front of a room full of squirmy,
restless kids who _probably_ think the computer is cool, but
get bored with drawing rectangles really quick. It was almost
doomed to fail because the people charged with teaching it, by
and large didn't understand what they were teaching.

many could not wrap their heads around functional-
style programming.

Eughhh... flashbacks to university... I am not surprised people struggle with it, I still remember the horrors of trying to master depth-first and breadth-first algorithms using only statements of truth. That was in
HUGS, a variant of Haskell - not sure if LISP is easier or harder than that?

Haskell is what's called a "pure" functional language; that is,
one in which there are no side-effects (e.g., you can't change
the value of a variable). Of course, a truly pure language in
this sense isn't good for much; only making your CPU get hot.
The mantra is, "no mutable state." Of course, under the hood
the computer is mutating all kinds of state: registers are changing
values, the program counter is cycling around memory, cells in RAM
are setting and clearing bits, etc: most modern computers are
highly imperative machines (there's a reason we call the simple
operations that the processor actually traffics in "instructions",
after all!), but the language hides this from you.

But you still need to have some effect on the real-world; IO is
a good example. Printing something to a terminal window is a
side-effect. So Haskell wraps all of that up in a mathematical
construction from Category Theory called a "Monad." I won't go
into the specifics of that, but suffice it to say that it can
be very confusing if you don't have a strong background in pure
mathematics (or at least theoretical computer science). To
illustrate, I'll just mention that category theory was created
to address some deficiencies in set theory (a "set" in the
mathematical sense is not well defined, but rather, is intuitive). Specifically, category theory lets us answer the question, "does
the set of all sets contain itself?"

So while Haskell is a neat language, it's got an unofficial motto
that is, "avoid success at all costs." Most Lisp variants are far
more pragmatic, and let you have side-effects and mutable state.
LOGO definitely does. Indeed, LOGO has dynamic variable scoping,
common for Lisp variants at the time, like Maclisp.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

Re: Re: Is BASIC to be regarded as less than reputable prog lang?
By: tenser to Bob Worm on Mon Jul 15 2024 00:40:12

Hi, tenser.

The problem was that, while the ideas are powerful, you have to
be an expert at computers to successfully transfer them to
computers, and where I think the LOGO effort failed was in
getting _teachers_ well-enoughed versed in the technology _and_
the underly pedagogical theory to be able to use it successfully.

Oh, absolutely. One of my good friends is 10 years older than me and I'm sure he mentioned using the turtle in school - this was a different school where presumably there was at least one teacher keen enough to learn the technology and share it with the pupils. Meanwhile in my school the IT knowledge was so minimal that I remember being called out of class at 7 or 8 years old to go and fix a printer for another teacher (and that probably just involved flipping the lever from friction feed to tractor feed).

My wife taught in a primary school for a few years and I think the general "background" level of technology comfort had got to the point where the least technology literate were easily showing very young children how to draw things with the "roamer" bot. I think that was a self-contained educational version of a Big Trak, though, rather than being connected to a computer. I imagine that would be thought of as arcane now, nearly 20 years on.

You seem to know a lot about this, I assume you must either be in or have some strong association with computer science in academia?

Thanks for the detailed response - very interesting.

Cheers,

BobW
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: >>> Magnum BBS <<< - bbs.magnum.uk.net (21:1/205)

On 14 Jul 2024 at 02:14p, Bob Worm pondered and said...

My wife taught in a primary school for a few years and I think the
general "background" level of technology comfort had got to the point where the least technology literate were easily showing very young children how to draw things with the "roamer" bot. I think that was a self-contained educational version of a Big Trak, though, rather than being connected to a computer. I imagine that would be thought of as arcane now, nearly 20 years on.

Yeah, the situation now is undoubtedly better. On the flip side,
just drawing a triangle on the screen isn't going to impress anyone
anymore.

A lot of the physical computing stuff, where you get a small robot
to walk around a grid on the floor or something, or you interact
with some kind of sensor or something, seems to be the way forward.

You seem to know a lot about this, I assume you must either be in or
have some strong association with computer science in academia?

I'm actually not a computer scientist; I was trained as a
mathematician. But I am a working software engineer, and I
have a lot of contacts in both academia and industrial
research, though in the systems space. I try to attend at
least one academic conference a year to keep abreast of what's
going on on that side of the house, and occasionally drop into
Hackers or something more off-beat to keep up with the other
side.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

Is Lisp a reputable language?

"Simplify after the function is correct" applies to a lot more than the
code you'll write in the recipe book.

"Just because it works, doesn't mean it's correct."

Hell, after reading those again, I think the authors are teaching maturity Don't bother with wahat other people think.

Don't even assume that any language is blessed.

Lisp is brilliant, but not blessed.

I love the correctness first approach, but very few languages
are going to be both this and beginner friendly.

Lisp, or at least any existing dialect, doesn't fit it's own ideals, it seems.

But no one is really crying.
At eleast
not anyone that I know.


--- ENiGMA 1/2 v0.0.14-beta (linux; x64; 21.6.1)
* Origin: BodaX BBS ~ bbs.beardy.se:23 / SSH port 22 (21:3/158)