Date   : Sat, 01 Apr 2006 12:26:51 +0200
From   : "W.Scholten" <whs@...>
Subject: Re: Basic & BBC Basic

Fragula wrote:

>> - BBC basic is better of course, but not structured enough.
> 
> Structure for structure's sake is the crutch of the feeble-minded. You
> can use your brain to write structured assembly language. Its merely a
> matter of form.


That's not a comment on what I said, because I gave an example why BBC
basic isn't structured enough. Your example on assembler is irrelevant
as with assembler you're not as limited as in Basic. And any structure
you add in the assembler stage in macros, won't end up as overhead
except for the instructions themselves. This is not so in Basic as it's
interpreted. Even in case of Basic compilers, the resulting code may not 
be efficient (the source will definately be ugly), etc.


As to:

> Structure for structure's sake is the crutch of the feeble-minded

This is nonsense. The whole point of structure is that it makes it
easier to debug, understand, write correct code. It also makes it whole
lot easier to apply code analysis tools.

Your argument can be reduced to: Why not code in machine code (not even
assembler) since anything you can do in a higher level language can be
done in machine code too.

The point is of course that that costs a lot more effort and will result
in many more bugs. The same is true here, some things in BBC Basic are a
hassle because of for example the single specific loop structure and the
IF structure.

Regarding later BBC basic versions as someone else mentioned: These may
be improved but my point was about the original BBC Basic. I'm not
interested in running any form of Basic on a PC.

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