Date : Mon, 06 Mar 2006 12:16:37 +0000
From : "Kris Adcock" <kris@...>
Subject: Re: Exile (Re: Zalaga)
--- "W.Scholten" <whs@...> wrote:
> 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
Personal opinion.
> instruction code' when describing a language. I also remembered there
Blanket statement. No sources to back up your ascertation.
> were others (magazine articles I read long ago) who didn't accept "Basic
> is an acronym" either.
Mythical "other" sources. Without actual cited quotes, this is akin to
"someone in the pub told me".
>
> 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
You've let your personal opinion of BASIC get in the way there. I'm
disinclined to believe any facts you choose to push because I suspect you're
shouting from your "BASIC is bad" soapbox.
> programming language with 'symbolic instruction code' in mind. They just
Blanket statement again. Who are "they"? The Men in Black?
I'm willing to entertain both sides of this argument. Unfortunately, your
obsession of putting a sarcastic edge to it all, and to liberally distribute
your personal opinion in it all doesn't really help you. I'm more inclined to
agree with the other side just because of how you've phrased your e-mail.
Love and kisses,
Kris.