Re: Is it too hard to program for the Apple?

[Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Calibrator wrote:

> On 23 Feb., 18:42, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> > When I can compile a C program now as fast as I could run a BASIC program
> > in the old days, there is no longer a "benefit" to using BASIC.
>
> For an experienced programmer perhaps, but not if you want to
> learn a programming language. I'm still convinced that modern
> BASIC is still easier to learn than C/C++.
When I first programmed, I didn't have enough memory for BASIC.  I never
found it difficult to program in 6502 assembly code, hand assemblying 
what I cooked up.  I've never bothered with BASIC much, it was definitely 
a step back.  (Though, in the days when it was in ROM on most computers, 
it was terribly handy to do really simple things with, because it was in 
ROM and handy).

Whatever language you first learned, chances are good you will consider it
the "easiest" because the next language you have to adapt to, while the
first one you are learning.

My point about the speed of compiling is important here.  One reason BASIC 
was so common and useful was because it was an interpreter, so you got 
results fast, none of that batch card processing or going through multiple
iterations of compiling.  The reason it landed on small computers in the 
first place was because there was an existing pool of people who'd had 
experience with it, and so they could get a good start with the familiar.

But once you can compile so fast, much of the problem goes away.  You can 
try things just like I did back in 1979 on my KIM-1, running a bit of code
under the monitor to see what results I'd get, learning by doing.  A fast
compiling takes away the old delay, so you can play that way with C. It is 
subjective, but I think some of the perceived difficulty of assembly 
language or C over BASIC is simply because it's not what you are used to.

Otherwise, why do I think of BASIC as "hard"?

  Michael