Basic

"Stefan Ram" wrote in message
...
mechanic writes:
You asked why it's called Basic, I answered.

If something is called "Basic" today, the
explanation /why/ it is called "Basic" is:

Because Kemeny and Kurtz did not register
"BASIC" as a trademark back in 1964.

("Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code"
is just a backronym.)

Yes but I imagine it's a backronym that was devised at the same time as the
language was devised, rather than many years later. A contemporaneous
backronym is almopt as good as a phrase that becomes an acronym.

I wonder whether the phrase "RAdio Direction And Ranging" (radar) was
tweaked at all to make a pronounceable word; likewise for laser, RAM, ROM
etc.


I'd say that VB is a fairly straightforward development of simple BASIC, in
that it uses the same syntax for loops and conditionals etc. It has a lot of
enhancements, but most of those are the libraries of visual routines that
are called by the language. How it's implemented behind the scenes is very
different: it's compiled whereas most (all?) BASIC was originally
imterpreted.

In article , GS writes
Basic runs on DOS and is still used for CNC programming; -nothing visual
about it! Only resemblance to VB is syntax related and some of its built-in
functions/methods. I have desktop software for my CNC machines but don't
know if it works on Win10, but don't see why not if Win10 supports DOS!

I have a copy of QB45 which I've just tested under DosBox and DosShell
on a Windows 10 64 bit machine, I did a little clear & print Dos program
which worked fine, I didn't make an exe file but I would assume that
also would work.

Mike

--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange

"NY" wrote

| I'd say that VB is a fairly straightforward development of simple BASIC,
in
| that it uses the same syntax for loops and conditionals etc.

And most of the commands listed above are still the
rem, read, input, print, goto, let, gosub.... But some of those
have gone out of usage. I've seen long arguments about
GoSub in the VB group but I've never actually used it myself.
And there's no sense using REM when a simple apostrophe
will do. Since we now have color syntax highlighting in
code editors there's no advantage to making comments
more obvious with REM.

| It has a lot of
| enhancements, but most of those are the libraries of visual routines that
| are called by the language. How it's implemented behind the scenes is very
| different: it's compiled whereas most (all?) BASIC was originally
| imterpreted.
|

It's way beyond extra libraries. VB can use system APIs,
COM objects, inline assembly... There are many added
functions... And it has the thing that made it successful:
Automatic GUI coding. Buttons and textboxes can just be
dragged and dropped onto a window, designed, have a
caption added, then the VB programmer just has to code
the Click event. VB is designed for GUI operating systems.
Without that it can take many pages of code just to
create button functionality. The rectangle has to be drawn
onscreen. The 3-D shadow has to be drawn. All with basic
graphics API functions. The caption has to be drawn onscreen.
The push-down event needs graphical display. System
messages have to be hooked in order to respond when the
button is hovered over or clicked.... VB took the tedium
out of GUI software.

I'm not sure how useful it is to define these things. Aside
from the tendency for people to want to affiliate with a
"team" (the javascripters vs the perlers, and so on), the
definitions are not so clear. The form of VB grew out of
Basic principles. Simplicity of syntax. Ease of use. Beyond
that? In its most basic beginner usage VB is almost identical
to VBScript. At its most advanced it's very similar
to C++ in functionality. Similarly, C++ can now be used to
write Metro trinket apps while VBScript can be used to write
complicated software. (I just wrote a database program in
VBS last week to store my past email for easy search. It
uses an HTA for the interface and MSI Windows Installer
files for the database.)

In '95-'96, javascript and VBScript were nothing more
than limited tools for processing webpage events. Microsoft
changed that by adding 1 simple function to each that
allowed each to instantiate and use COM objects. That
was the "ActiveX revolution", which turned IE into an
incredibly powerful and flexible tool while also turning it into
a security nightmare. These days javascript is being tweaked
to the point of being almost a compiled programming language,
in order to maximize efficiency in commercial, interactive
webpages. It even uses js-written libraries of a kind. So
how does one define javascript? It depends on the situation.

But there are discernable patterns. There's always some
kind of balance between bare-metal functionality, security,
ease of use, RAD (rapid app. development), deployment
options, etc. To my mind those are what really define
a language. Just as with a spoken language, the practical
application is what makes it useful. What is BASIC today?
A museum piece. But someone could write a runtime for it
and turn it into something else, given a reason to do so. Give
it a DotNet connection and suddenly it would have access
to the vast DotNet object model. Of course, there would
need to be justification beyond nostalgia.

"Wolf K" wrote in message
...
One of the first things I did back when I was fooling around with BASIC
was buy a compiler. Even short programs executed noticeably faster,
especially graphics routines.

My very first computer was a CPM3-based computer which came with a basic
interpreter. I timed how long it took to sort an array of numbers using a
bubble sort (the only type of sort that I can remember without having to
look it up!). I then wrote the same program in Pascal for which I had a
compiler. The difference was very noticeable. I then wrote a bubble sort in
Z80 and called it from a Basic program which populated an array with
numbers, passing the address of the array. That was VERY fast: I think I had
to increase the size of the array to something like 10,000 elements to get a
time that was long enough for me to measure!

I wish I still had a record of my Z80 code. I remember being very pleased
when I managed to get it to run without crashing the computer - machine code
is not very forgiving of bugs :-)

On 25/11/2017 19:44, Keith Nuttle wrote:
Dumb question
Years ago I did a lot of work in dBase and still have the programs and
databases.

I also have a copy of the Basic that it ran on. Is there any chance
that I could get the basic to run on Windows 10 and run dBase?

Dumb question no doubt but why are you insisting on using something that
was popular in 1980? How about doing something in MS-SQL, MySQL or even
LocalDB? If you want localDB then search for it in Google and make sure
you choose Local DB when downloading (NOT MS-SQL Express). To create a
database in LocalDB you need Visual Studio but to create a DB in MS-SQL
you don't need any developing tools. To create a UI you will need
something such as a Web interface or something similar but this will be
a steep learning curve for you. Take this from me.

--
With over 500 million devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 10:32:53 -0500, Wolf K wrote:

One of the first things I did back when I was fooling around with BASIC
was buy a compiler. Even short programs executed noticeably faster,
especially graphics routines.

My first real exposure to BASIC was on a Commodore-64, if you don't
count HP-BASIC that ran on some high end test equipment that we had at
work. When I realized how slow BASIC was on the C64, I bought a spiral
bound book on 6502* Assembly and read it cover to cover, practicing as I
went. Assembly was plenty fast for its time and as a reward for digging
into it, a couple of my colleagues paid me to rewrite some of their
BASIC modules in Assembly. Those were my first paid gigs. Humble
beginnings, for sure.

*The C64 had a 6510 CPU, but it was 99.9% compatible with the 6502. In
fact, if memory serves, there were only one or two addresses that were
different, way down low, like location 0 and 1, perhaps.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 02:29:37 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 10:32:53 -0500, Wolf K wrote:

One of the first things I did back when I was fooling around with BASIC
was buy a compiler. Even short programs executed noticeably faster,
especially graphics routines.

My first real exposure to BASIC was on a Commodore-64, if you don't
count HP-BASIC that ran on some high end test equipment that we had at
work. When I realized how slow BASIC was on the C64, I bought a spiral
bound book on 6502* Assembly and read it cover to cover, practicing as I
went. Assembly was plenty fast for its time and as a reward for digging
into it, a couple of my colleagues paid me to rewrite some of their
BASIC modules in Assembly. Those were my first paid gigs. Humble
beginnings, for sure.

*The C64 had a 6510 CPU, but it was 99.9% compatible with the 6502. In
fact, if memory serves, there were only one or two addresses that were
different, way down low, like location 0 and 1, perhaps.

The 8-Bit Guy on Youtube showed how significant the speed increase was
when C64 programs were developed in Assembly rather than Basic so I
can imagine why your buds were so willing to pay you to make the
conversion.

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 17:35:53 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:



I took a course in IBM machine langauge years ago, got to the point
where I could write 12-15 lines cold (no revision) without a bug. Felt
extremely proud of myself. Probably couldn't even read it today.




When you say "IBM machine langauge," you mean for the 360/370? In
1962, when I first started programming, I learned to write in machine
language--for the IBM 1401!

Around 1970, I needed to modify a 360 program that was partly written
in machine language, and that was the part I needed to modify. I took
no course, but I read the manual, and quickly learned enough to make
the modification I needed to make.

It's now 47 years later, and I've forgotten all I ever knew about it.
I'm sure I couldn't read it today either. But I'm also sure that if I
went back to the manual, I could quickly learn it again--as much as I
learned in 1970, and even more.

The language I knew best in those days was COBOL, and although I could
still easily read it today, I've forgotten enough that I couldn't
write it without brushing up with a manual.

I haven't written a line of any kind of programming code for about
thirty years, but if I needed to, I could learn how.

On 11/28/2017 10:43 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 17:35:53 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:


I took a course in IBM machine langauge years ago, got to the point
where I could write 12-15 lines cold (no revision) without a bug. Felt
extremely proud of myself. Probably couldn't even read it today.



When you say "IBM machine langauge," you mean for the 360/370? In
1962, when I first started programming, I learned to write in machine
language--for the IBM 1401!

Around 1970, I needed to modify a 360 program that was partly written
in machine language, and that was the part I needed to modify. I took
no course, but I read the manual, and quickly learned enough to make
the modification I needed to make.

It's now 47 years later, and I've forgotten all I ever knew about it.
I'm sure I couldn't read it today either. But I'm also sure that if I
went back to the manual, I could quickly learn it again--as much as I
learned in 1970, and even more.

The language I knew best in those days was COBOL, and although I could
still easily read it today, I've forgotten enough that I couldn't
write it without brushing up with a manual.

I haven't written a line of any kind of programming code for about
thirty years, but if I needed to, I could learn how.

The thing I liked about COBOL and dBase was the program was readable.
Even if you do not know the technicalities of the language when read you
could tell what the program was doing.

Working with these two languages, I believe has helped me with my
English composition, as the same logical principals used in programing
are applicable to writing procedures and articles.

--
2017: The year we learn to play the great game of Euchre

In article , GS writes
Basic runs on DOS and is still used for CNC programming; -nothing visual
about it! Only resemblance to VB is syntax related and some of its built-in
functions/methods. I have desktop software for my CNC machines but don't
know if it works on Win10, but don't see why not if Win10 supports DOS!

I have a copy of QB45 which I've just tested under DosBox and DosShell on a
Windows 10 64 bit machine, I did a little clear & print Dos program which
worked fine, I didn't make an exe file but I would assume that also would
work.

Mike

Thanks for confirming! I won't test my CNC desktop app because I'm retired now
and no longer use it. (I still have the XP Pro workstation it is installed on,
though!)

--
Garry

Free usenet access at http://www.eternal-september.org
Classic VB Users Regroup!
comp.lang.basic.visual.misc
microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion

"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
news
The thing I liked about COBOL and dBase was the program was readable. Even
if you do not know the technicalities of the language when read you could
tell what the program was doing.

I don't know COBOL, but I've written programs in dBase (in the form that is
compiled by a compiler whose name escapes me). dBase is a good
straightforward language with no surprises or obscure variables and casting.
Pascal is reasonably similar in being fairly English-like.

C is just the opposite: it is possible to create "write-only code" which
no-one else can understand - indeed many C gurus regard it as essential to
make their code as obscure and obfuscated as possible, so as to guarantee
their own jobs: "you're the only one who can understand the damn thing so we
need you to support and enhance it".

I used to extensively in C, but I tried to take small steps and comment
copiously. I still have to stop and think every time I have to do a
pointer-pointer or a malloc plus pointer to struct construction, especially
when working out what I need to pass as a parameter to a library function.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 12:31:55 -0500, Keith Nuttle wrote:

The thing I liked about COBOL and dBase was the program was
readable. Even if you do not know the technicalities of the
language when read you could tell what the program was doing.

Isn't that what the comments are for?

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 19:13:36 -0000, NY wrote:

C is just the opposite: it is possible to create "write-only code"
which no-one else can understand - indeed many C gurus regard it
as essential to make their code as obscure and obfuscated as
possible, so as to guarantee their own jobs: "you're the only one
who can understand the damn thing so we need you to support and
enhance it".

Right there folks is why code reviews are an important part of the
development process.