BASIC vs Python

[Scott Robinson]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:00:54 -0600, Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org> wrote:

>"not [quite] more i squared" <ruses at users.ch> writes:
>
>> Adam DePrince wrote:
>>
>>>>Given the hardware constraints of the early 1980s, which
>>>>language do you think should have been used instead of BASIC?
>>> Lisp
>>> Forth
>> Exactly my pick
>
>Logo (my pick) has been called "Lisp without the parenthesis". It has
>the advantage of using standard algebraic notation for formulas,
>instead of operator post or pre.
>
>        <mike

I *thought* that some sort of logo was pushed by Atari (for the
400/800 series) as an educational language.  It also seemed to be more
for kids, and emphasized "turtle graphics" (which I hadn't heard of
since till seeing the python module that does that as well).  I
suspect that this was exactly the type of marketing to keep anyone
(especially kids) from looking at it.  

Forth seems better than basic, but is *weird* (I tried it for a
while).  I'm not sure going from Forth to C (or Python) would be much
easier than Basic to C or Python.  The biggest disappointment for
Forth was that no significant Forth chips were made (and none until it
was too late).  A machine designed to be run on Forth would have been
unbelievably powerful from the late 70s to the mid 90s (it would be
more painful now than the x86 legacy, but still).

Assembler has all the vices you mentioned (the only abstractions you
get are the ones you code yourself), with the extreme virtue of
knowing *exactly* what the computer is doing.  If you want to learn on
a 80's machine, assembler has a lot to say for it.

Scott Robinson