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

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

 < snip >
| Basic was intended to be a simple language, but intentions of the
| creator has nothing to do with it.  Many useful programs were written
| in more powerful versions of basic.  I know of programs that are
| still being sold that are written in MS DOS's Basic such as Peachtree
| Accounting.  There were versions of basic created just for
| commercial/business environments. Languages like Visual Basic have
| extended Basic into the current windows, but the programs are not
| very related to the original Basic programs.  Like Cobol, Basic
| programs are cheaper to leave in Basic than to re-write in something
| else.

There will come a point during the life of software, as it becomes more
sophisticated and complex in order to keep pace with the growing demands of
the users, where the limitations of BASIC start to be a liability. The
essentially unstructured nature of the language does nothing to encourage
the development of a solid program structure which would make future
maintenance and modification less hazardous. The very limited facilites for
defining and manipulating complex data structures mean that there is very
little in-built into the language to help the programmer in modern data
manipulation scenarios. Cobol, on the other hand, is naturally
well-structured and self-documenting. It is well suited to handling complex
data structures and presents the programmer with facilities helpfull to
complex data manipulation tasks. It is essentially modular in design and
readily facilitates building self-contained procedures. Consider the
somewhat modern task of writing an XML parser. This is very straightforward
in COBOL (I know - I've done it) and it is not particularly difficult to
have the resultant application execute quickly and efficiently. In BASIC, on
the other hand, the task is far from straightforward. As development
progresses, the program grows exponentially as the programmer has to write
more (sub)routines to provide features which are not part of the language.
The resultant program is large and unwieldy, and no duobt does not execute
very quickly either. Okay, there are some non-standard versions of BASIC
where extensions have been added to help overcome some of these limitations.
I can only suggest that if you still believe that BASIC is suitable for
writing modern programs for manipulating complex data structures then you
give it a try. If you believe that Cobol is not suitable, then give that a
try also. Okay, I haven't tried wring an XML parser in Algol - I'd rather
not have to - or in Fortran (though I am sure it would be possible), but C
and Java cope with tasks like this with consumate ease.
In a way I think it's a bit like learning to drive. You start off with
driving lessons to learn simplified procedures in order to pass a pretty
basic driving test. At that point, you can make a car go forwards and
backwards, and turn left and right, at various speeds and that is about it.
Then you really start learning to drive. With luck, a year or two later you
take advanced driving lessons (the 'system') and begin by un-learning all
the basic stuff that got you through the test. The you really start driving
!  Programming in BASIC is a bit like learner driving - you are writing code
to make the computer do something, but only fairly rudimentary stuff. You
might get as far as putting many of these rudimentary bits together to give
the appearence of a more sophisticated application. Move on to the
professional/commercial programming languages and then you really get things
to happen.
Kevin.