When does BASIC not become BASIC?

[tipc]

VB.Net is actually a pretty good product - I've been using it on a daily basis since .Net 1.1 hit the street.

I've found that VB6 users that hate on VB.Net do so because it won't permit the kind of stupid shenanigans that you could get away with in VB6.

The VB.Net haters fall into two camps - the ones that do it because it's "Cool" to make stupid, sweeping statements like Dijkstra and have no concept of how a language can evolve over 55+ years. The other camp is basically no-talent language snobs.

BTW, VB.Net has full support in .Net 5, including WinForms.

Another great RAD tool is Lazarus - the core language is Object Pascal and it's incredibly cross-platform. (and open source!)

g.

According to members of this board, there are .NET clubs in existence. I thought I was a fanboy LOL.

Languages dp evolve. But VB is no more an evolutionary step for basic anymore then C# is one for C/C++. It's a fork.

 

[tipc]

So, your basic Tower of Babel.

LOL LOL. Love that comment!

 

[CP/M User]

LOL LOL. Love that comment!

I don't understand that comment.

I just want to know why Fortran gets so much coverage on the Historial Programming Language Chart and why BASIC is deemed a minor language with lowercase lettering, when the truth is it was across so many computer systems, with many variations, I once learnt that a TAB() was different on an Apple ][ system than from an TAB() on an Amstrad CPC system, though Standards weren't the same on 8bit Microcomputers and while it was still being called BASIC, they have their own features depending on the machines capabilities. However, an Amstrad CPC systems BASIC seems to have followed Dartmouth BASIC to some extent, but what about a C64 with BASIC v2? The BASIC from their machine looks a lot scrapper (sorry), but still capable of producing some interesting stuff.

There doesn't seem to be a chart mapping out BASIC Programming Language, a number of Microcomputer BASICs seem to follow Dartmouth and the only examples I can draw from are the Usborne books with Games for a range of Systems, though not every BASIC being standard, substitutions for other Microcomputers are used. Even 'CLS' isn't the norm on every Microcomputer with 'HOME' being used instead on Apple ][ Computers for example.

 

[tipc]

Basically, I think, Chuck meant it was all so confusing. But he should be allowed to expound on his own comment.

While BASIC certainly enjoyed widespread "use", I have to wonder how many well known applications were coded in any of it's varieties. That is compiled varieties. Of course VB expanded on BASIC's success in a huge way. But as it's been said, with Delphi you could write VB, the opposite isn't true. BASIC, though quite useful for students and hobbyists, and others, never really made it to the big leagues as far as I can tell.

 

[commodorejohn]

I don't know who put that chart together or what their metrics were, but as popular as BASIC was, I think you could argue that it never had much of an influence on anything else. As compared to languages like ALGOL its many, many descendants or cousins-twice-removed, BASIC has always been a pretty insular family, as popular as it has been in its own right.

 

[whartung]

BASIC has always been a pretty insular family, as popular as it has been in its own right.

This is the issue.

The key point is what did other languages learn from BASIC. In the end, "not much". Once on the BASIC branch of the tree, things go in a pretty straight line and remain BASIC.