Re: Complete Pascal Info Website is now finished.

[PZ <skierpaul@yahoo.com>]

On Sep 16, 1:02 am, limtc <thyech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem with TML Basic is that the codes look very bad when
> compared to both GSoft BASIC and Complete Pascal:
>
> This is how it looks like in the sample codes:
>
> Graf Init 320
> Graf On
>
> _SetRect(VARPTR(aRect%(0)),100,10,190,20)
>
> Compared this to Complete Pascal:
>
> graphics(320);
> setRect(r, 100, 10, 190, 20);
>
> or GSoft BASIC
>
> hgr
> setRect(r, 100, 10, 190, 20)
>
> TML Basic code is simply bad, especially all the toolbox calls need to
> start with _...

Agreed.  I don't think its worth spending the time muddying the
water.  You have good examples of both Basic (GSoft) and Complete
Pascal.  I think adding a handful examples of other (inferior?)
languages that you don't plan on expanding much on will add a lot of
benefit.

This is not to say if someone is crazy about TML Basic that they
shouldn't go out and create a site.  I just feel that if someone
creates a website, its good to stay focused; both for your own
productivity and for ease of navigation / confusion minimalization for
its users.

On TML BASIC: I think that the reason that TML Basic wasn't developed
much further was due to the popularity and overall ease of use of
their Pascal product. Once someone decided to expand their programming
skills beyond Applesoft by purchasing a programming package they might
as well choose to migrate to a more powerful and less restrictive
language than BASIC.

- Paul