Date : Mon, 06 Mar 2006 13:55:23 +0100
From : "W.Scholten" <whs@...>
Subject: Re: Exile (Re: Zalaga)
Kris Adcock wrote:
>>I rememebered that too. and it's rubbish. Noone uses 'symbolic
>
> Personal opinion.
Yes, and almost certainly true. You can't be 100% sure about many
things, so there you are.
>>instruction code' when describing a language. I also remembered there
>
> Blanket statement. No sources to back up your ascertation.
I don't need to. This isn't part of my assertion.
>>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".
I don't need to give other sources. I'm giving background. I'm not
saying Basic isn't an acronym because of what I read (or "heard in a
pub"). And that's obvious, because I said 'who didn't accept "Basic is
an acronym"', I'm not saying, 'who said Basic isn't an acronym'.
Further, I don't need to prove from sources that Basic is not an
acronym. My argument is: it's not because it obviously isn't. That's
what I said very clearly in my post. Try reading it again.
Analyze the meaning of the words Basic is supposedly made up from,
instead of just accepting the acronym myth. That's why I said 'gullible'.
>>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
No. That's separate and if you had read more of my posts to this mailing
list carefully, or indeed pages on my website, you would know I do *not*
let any opinions get in the way of analysis.
> disinclined to believe any facts you choose to push because I suspect you're
> shouting from your "BASIC is bad" soapbox.
You obviously don't understand or don't want to understand what I say,
or even don't want to think about it, just because I say something in a
certain way. I don't have a "BASIC is bad" soapbox. In fact, you cannot
infer that from anything I've ever said on this mailing list or on my
website. I only say that you can hardly call it 'designing' when making
a language like Basic. Also, this has nothing to do with the issue
name/acronym.
>>programming language with 'symbolic instruction code' in mind. They just
>
> Blanket statement again. Who are "they"? The Men in Black?
The ones who originally said it was an acronym, obviously (The Basic
designers probably). That's obvious isn't it?
Men in black? Are you trying to be really funny or just obnoxious?
> 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.
So I'm being a little sarcastic about the 'design' of Basic, so what?
Perphaps you don't like the fact that I consider Basic=name as a fact,
well, tough.
I wasn't being unfriendly towards Mike (didn't mean to anyway), but your
response is, and your arguments are complete and utter rubbish showing:
- you don't understand what I'm saying
- you have a very poor grasp of reasoning (e.g. Mythical "other"
sources which I don't use nor need for my argument, just mention as context)
- you like making assumptions (e.g. without a proper basis you assume
I dislike Basic so much that everything I say about Basic is tainted by
that; which is doubly wrong)
In fact, your posting is one of the most nonsensical reponses I've seen
in a very long time.
--
Wouter
---
BBC micro | Calculators | Classic PC games: http://www.xs4all.nl/~swhs/whs/