BASIC vs Python

[Mike Meyer]

Adam DePrince <adam at cognitcorp.com> writes:
> On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 12:52, Mike Meyer wrote:
>> Peter Hickman <peter at semantico.com> writes:
>> > Basic has progressed much since you last looked at it, time to update
>> > your facts. Basic has recursion, it compiles to native code, it has
>> > objects, can be event driven and everything else you would expect of a
>> > language.
> What you describe isn't everything that I'd expect of a language. 
> Again, this is what I meant when I suggested that making basic your
> native language limits your horizon.
>
> 1. First class functions
> 2. Full functional programming support ala Standard ML
> 3. Portability
> 4. Elegance

Oddly enough, my second most favorite language (after Python) is
Eiffel. No first class functions. They do have a first-class
function-like object called an agent. But to use a standard method as
an agent, you have to wrap it.

Portability for the compiler I use is probably better than Python, as
they try very hard to stick to ANSI C, and not use Posix features.

Elegance - definitely more elegant than Python. There's a sound,
logical reason for every feature of the language, and the reasoning is
to help build robust, reliable code.

The problem is, the only compiler that runs in my environment to date
is missing most of the OS interfaces needed to do serious work. And
the garbage collector sucks rocks. It's still a joy to write small
programs in, but I can't use it for real work.

> Lastly, Mike, please refrain from "argumentum ad hominem."  You never
> know where life will bring you.  Wouldn't it suck to find your dream
> job, only to meet "Granddad" at the interview?

The attributions got screwed up. I'm Mike - and I didn't call anyone
granddad, I was called granddad. My oldest is a bit young to have kids
yet.

          <mike
-- 
Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org>			http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.