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

["Randy McLaughlin" <randy@nospam.com>]

"Kevin Lawton" <kepla@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bd2v30$ct$5@sparta.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.

As for Basic I agree that it is a dying language and unless the computer
world makes another shift that would bring Basic's strengths back into play
it will have the same status as Algol and many other languages.  As far as
Cobol goes my experience is limited and I will bow to your expertise there.
My only point about Basic is that there are millions of programs that were
written for it and it is too costly to re-write all of them.  As far as
mentioning Cobol it is just that I have not heard much about it other than
Y2k upgrades to older programs.