Re: Low-level vs. High-level programming (was My First Computer)

["Kevin Lawton" <kepla@btinternet.com>]

Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se> wrote:
| In article <lV5Ja.24038$T37.2702@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com>,
| Randy McLaughlin <randy@nospam.com> wrote:
|
|| Basic was intended to be a simple language, but intentions of the
|| creator has nothing to do with it.
|
| The major revolution with Basic wasn't the language itself (which
| really was nothing but a stripped-down version of Fortran; later
| strings were added though), but the environment: for the first time,
| the programmer didn't need to store his source code on punched cards
| or paper tape and submit it to some batch queue, but could instead
| sit at an interactive terminal, getting almost immediate response to
| syntax errors/etc.  And THAT aspect of Basic is ubiqutous today:
| hardly anoyne do batch programming anymore....

Sorry, Paul, I just cannot agree with the above - except for the fact that
BASIC is a beginners language inspired by Fortran.
True, I have used Fortran on punched-card systems - but also on machines
with modern VDU-terminals and even on a PC.
Likewise, I have used BASIC (unfortunately) on systems which use
punched-card input or paper tape - though I have, of course, also seen BASIC
interpreted and compiled on various microcomputers. Many years ago, one
project I tried was to write a BASIC compiler (in Fortran !) on an old
mainframe (ICL 1904A) which could only use punched card input.  IMHO the
main reason why BASIC became popular was within the home computing
fraternity as most home computers were supplied with some version of BASIC
as a cut-down, simplified, easy-to-use, interpreted language was seen as
suitable for beginners. The Jupiter ACE, using the Forth language, proudly
bucked this trend.
Kevin.