Is there a programming language that is combination of Python andBasic?

[Hendrik van Rooyen]

 "Aaron Brady" <casti...pi at gmail.com> wrote:


On Apr 18, 4:44 am, "Hendrik van Rooyen" <m... at microcorp.co.za> wrote:

>> to untangle some spaghetti code. He did not mention if
>> the spaghetti was actually doing it's job, bug free, which
>> IMO is the only rational test for the quality of a piece
>
>I don't use 'rational' in the same way.  Do you mean objective?  Do
>readability, brevity, simplicity, purity, etc. contribute to quality?
>Is program quality equivalent (or identical) to code quality?

This paragraph illustrates the problem, I think:

Is there a significant difference between "rational" and "objective"?
Define "readability, brevity, simplicity, purity, etc" as applied
to the quality of a programme - it leads, inevitably, to a floundering
around in a wash of words.

However, to stop playing Devil's Advocate, there is such a thing
as code quality, but it cannot be defined, just like quality in general 
terms cannot be defined - as soon as you try, it turns to dross in
your hands.  Read Robert Pfirsig's "Zen and the art of motorcycle
maintenance" for a full explanation of this effect.

>> I do not agree with the reasoning that effectively says:
>> "If it is difficult to comprehend, it must be wrong"
>
>Wrong no, but impractical, possibly or probably or almost certainly,
>notwithstanding the subject-dependence of ease of comprehension.
>Simple code is more future-resilient than that which is difficult to
>comprehend, even holding the language (version) constant.  It is a

I think that the emphasis on future proofing code is actually overrated.

We try to code as if we are building pyramids, for all time, but the sad
experience is that only a tiny percentage of application code written has
a life of longer than about eight years.

8<------------------------------

>that of exploration, pioneering, research, and development.  However,
>even in simplest terms, some structures e.g. recursion, may be
>difficult to comprehend, but that doesn't mean they would be better
>more complicated.

This is true - the one does not imply the other, but the subtlety is that
it cuts either way - not more complicated, and not more simple.  One
has to strike a balance, and this is closer to an art than a science.
That said, however, throwing out the goto ( or even the more intriguing
comefrom ) is forcing the artist to paint while removing an element from
his palette - he has to work around the lack.

- Hendrik