Re: My First Computer (was Computing Editorial)

[carlg@libertybasic.com (Carl Gundel)]

Lee Hart <leeahart@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3E42B45F.287D@earthlink.net>...
> Lee Hart wrote:
> I think the big downfall of BASIC is its lack of extensibility. It's
> great to start with a minimal set of keywords; but you quickly want more
> capability. Adding it with GOSUBs quickly produces a mess. So, I think
> what you want is a way to extend the language as you learn, like LOGO
> and FORTH.

This was true of BASIC only until the mid '80s, when BASICs began
incorporating user definable functions and subs.  Most versions of
BASIC today do have this feature.  I think this is an important
feature, but it certainly wasn't needed for me to get started when I
learned BASIC.  In fact, too many fancy features probably would have
scared me off.  ;-)  Many people who enjoy programming for fun will
never do it to earn a living, and IMHO it's fine to have a language
which can accomodate the casual tinkerers as long as it can also
accomodate more advanced students.  Learning BASIC early on didn't
stop me from learning Forth, C, Smalltalk and Java later.

As far as BASIC being made extensible in a fashion like Logo or Forth,
it wouldn't be BASIC anymore.  I've had some of my users ask for OO
features in Liberty BASIC, and I though seriously about doing it.  I
came to realize that you couldn't really call it BASIC after adding
objects (at least not if you did it right).

-Carl Gundel, author of Liberty BASIC
http://www.libertybasic.com