Why Python is like BASIC (and why this is a good thing)

[William Tanksley Google]

"A.M. Kuchling" <akuchlin at dust.mems-exchange.org> wrote:
>    William Tanksley Google wrote:
> > My friend was griping about one battery that Basic comes with but
> > Python doesn't (at least not that I've seen): graphics.  Yes, I know

> turtle.py is cute, and requires Tkinter:

Good suggestion.  Where is it?

> When you say you'd like pixel graphics, what do you mean?  Just
> setting elements of a 2D pixel array to various colours?  Maybe
> something for that could be built on top of Tkinter, too.

I'm talking about being able to set pixels on the screen :-).  I don't
really care about the interface, as long as it's not horribly hokey. 
After all, we're talking about people who like BASIC because it
supports graphics.  We're not talking about high aesthetics here ;-). 
Seriously, an interface like QBasic's would be sufficient -- a
function named "screen" which pulls up a 'canvas', and a function
named 'pset' which sets points on it.  Bonus points for implementing
flood fill, lines, ellipses, and so on.  Extra bonus points for
designing an API which is adopted into the next version of Python, and
is thereby available on all reasonable platforms (and eventually
ported to DOS ;-).

I'm not 100% joking about that last part -- at least, it would be nice
to be able to use full-screen graphics modes where available.

> --amk                                                  (www.amk.ca)

-Billy