Date   : Mon, 06 Mar 2006 11:40:19 +0100
From   : "W.Scholten" <whs@...>
Subject: Re: Exile (Re: Zalaga)

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
> In article <440B0184.70903@...>, W.Scholten <whs@...> writes
> 
> 
>>Oh, and Basic is *not* an 
>>acronym. Anyone who believes that is far too gullible! It's just a name.
> 
> 
> Er, no.
> 
> Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code.  And I remembered
> that, didn't have to look it up.

I rememebered that too. and it's rubbish. Noone uses 'symbolic 
instruction code' when describing a language. I also remembered there 
were others (magazine articles I read long ago) who didn't accept "Basic 
is an acronym" either.

On my webpages I've put it thus:

Something that's peculiar about the period the 8 bit machines were 
popular, is the fact that lots of sources (books, magazine articles) say 
Basic is an acronym and consequently write it as BASIC (supposedly 
standing for 'Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code'). This is 
of course nonsense, even if those who 'designed' the language 
(tremendous overstatement in this case), say so. Noone designs a 
programming language with 'symbolic instruction code' in mind. They just 
made a basic language (hence 'Basic'), then probably thought it wouldn't 
be 'cool' if it wasn't an acronym. Or maybe they were seeing how many 
people they could fool.


-- 
Wouter
---
BBC micro | Calculators | Classic PC games: http://www.xs4all.nl/~swhs/whs/