Why do you care that much about BASIC part in the name of a language?

[Tomaaz]

I can't understand it and it annoys me a little bit. Languages that do have a "BASIC" part in their names are automatically accepted by this community (previously on BP.org), even if they have almost nothing in common with classic BASIC (Microsoft Small Basic, VB.NET, Oxygen Basic...). Languages that do not have it, are ignored. Even if they really are BASIC-like (Ring, Julia, NaaLaa, Lua...). Why do you care that much about the name?

[ZXDunny]

BASIC to me suggests classic BASIC languages - line numbers, primarily. Lack of types (and type casting) other than numeric and string. If those two requirements aren't met, I don't bother with it for my hobby time. Obviously in my work time I use much more powerful compiled languages (mostly Delphi and ObjC/C++), but for kicks it's as BASIC as I can get.

And very few languages meet that spec for me. But I don't get mad about it; I just ignore them.

[jj2007]

For me, the issue here is simplicity. Take Ring, for example: the syntax is nice and straightforward:

  see "Reading the file..." + nl
  whole_text = lower(read("warandpeace.txt"))

Similar in MasmBasic:

Code: [Select]

  PrintLine "Reading the file..."
  Let esi=FileRead$("warandpeace.txt")
  PrintLine Lower$(Left$(esi, 100))
BASIC is a philosophy for me:

“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.”
― Ernst F. Schumacher

If you want to know what is NOT Basic for me, see my Understanding C structures thread in the Masm forum. C++ is the ultimate nightmare for me - slow and clumsy. A big {pile} of [shit] with semicolons; all; over; the place;

Try the file read example above in C++...

[ScriptBasic]

BASIC should remain true to its name.

Script BASIC tail

Code: [Select]

OPEN "warandpeace.txt" FOR INPUT AS 1
PRINT RIGHT(INPUT(FILELEN("warandpeace.txt"),1),COMMAND())



jrs@laptop:~/sb/sb22/test$ time scriba warandpeace.sb 400
particular paper edition.


Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:

     http://www.gutenberg.org

This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

real   0m0.048s
user   0m0.046s
sys   0m0.000s
jrs@laptop:~/sb/sb22/test$

[Tomaaz]

BASIC should remain true to its name.

OK. So, we agree that this isn't BASIC:

Code: [Select]

Dim FILE_NAME As String = "C:\Users\Owner\Documents\test.txt"
Dim TextLine As String
If System.IO.File.Exists( FILE_NAME ) = True Then
Dim objReader As New System.IO.StreamReader(FILE_NAME)
Do While objReader.Peek() <> -1
TextLine = TextLine & objReader.ReadLine() & vbNewLine
Loop
Textbox1.Text = TextLine
Else
MessageBox.Show("File Does Not Exist")
End If

Cool. I hope you'll remember this when we have another discussions about BASIC popularity and usage in real world.

[Mopz]

The only thing I care for is the mentality that nothing should be more complicated than neccessary (excellent example, John!). With a non-complicated language - without classes, pointers and god knows what - things are forced to stay simple. But ... I guess this has nothing to do with "BASIC or not BASIC".

The mentality ... it's like the difference between using the IUP toolkit and win api to create and manage the GUI of a program.

[n00b]

I think Mopz summed up my thoughts. More importantly, is new programmers seeing there code executing in the order it was type. I started out on qbasic, which is a lot newer than the dialects many of you probably started with but it was not bogged down by classes, call backs, threads, and so on. While I use C++ a lot these days, I could never have imagined it as my first language because it does not make sense to someone who has not already learned the basics and familiarized themselves with these advanced concepts.

[jj2007]

If System.IO.File.Exists( FILE_NAME ) = True Then

Googling "System.IO.File.Exists" (with quotes) yields 70,000+ hits. Which means coders are desperately looking for help on a command that could be as simple as

Code: [Select]

.if Exist("Test.txt")
  Print "the file exists"
.endif
So why do these poor #xx coders have to add System.IO.File.? Does it look cooler? How many other frequent uses are their for the keyword exist()?

The other question, Tomaaz, is why you feel personally attacked when people express an opinion, especially since you explicitly asked for such opinions. When somebody writes that BASIC should be as simple as possible, it is certainly not meant to attack you. Take it easy, we are all hobby coders in a tiny niche market here, no need to feel attacked, or to attack anybody...

@n00b: "not bogged down by classes, call backs, threads"
- "classes" is just an obfuscation for "sub", "proc", "function" or whatever
- callbacks are cool, their main problem is that they are so badly explained. They are much simpler than people think, and really helpful
- threads are actually simple, although I very rarely need them

[Tomaaz]

So why do these poor #xx coders have to add System.IO.File.? Does it look cooler? How many other frequent uses are their for the keyword exist()?

That was a piece of VB.NET code and, as you can see in my first post, I do not consider this language to be BASIC. Other members do. For me it's to complex and not easy to read. Ring, Julia, NaaLaa, Lua, Python are more BASIC-like and what? How many members here had a look at them? How many consider them BASICs? Very few (myself only?), as they don't have the "BASIC" part in their names.

The other question, Tomaaz, is why you feel personally attacked when people express an opinion, especially since you explicitly asked for such opinions.

I don't. I'm just curious why, for some people, the name of the language seems to be "everything". There is a "BASIC" part in the name? It is BASIC then. That's silly. I think you've totally missed my point. I agree with all replies here, especially with what Marcus said. Things shouldn't be more complicated than necessary. This is the first thing I'm looking while testing programming languages. And I find it more in languages like Ring, Julia, NaaLaa, Lua than in majority of BASIC dialects. But I still need to read a nonsense like "Why should I waste my time for Lua or Julia if I can do things faster and easier in BASIC". Well, to finally understand that, in fact, other languages are easier than BASIC?

When somebody writes that BASIC should be as simple as possible, it is certainly not meant to attack you.

Why should it be? I think the same. The problem is that majority BASIC dialects aren't as simple as possible. Other languages are, but because BASIC dialects tend to have "BASIC" attached to their name, people automatically assume that they are easier to learn/use than other languages (Ring, Julia, NaaLaa, Lua, Python, Ruby...). Well, that's simply not true.

[Mike Lobanovsky]

So, we agree that this isn't BASIC:

Code: [Select]

Dim FILE_NAME As String = "C:\Users\Owner\Documents\test.txt"
Dim TextLine As String
If System.IO.File.Exists( FILE_NAME ) = True Then
Dim objReader As New System.IO.StreamReader(FILE_NAME)
Do While objReader.Peek() <> -1
TextLine = TextLine & objReader.ReadLine() & vbNewLine
Loop
Textbox1.Text = TextLine
Else
MessageBox.Show("File Does Not Exist")
End If

To me, VB.NET above is the world's second best BASIC after VB6 in the year of 2016. Apart from FBSL, of course. Which effectively means there are and will always be people -- thousands upon thousands of them -- who value A more than B in BASIC. We've discussed that issue more than once before and I see no real reason to raise it once again on the new site. It can only bring about the worst that was there on the late BP dot org -- endless trolling, flaming, and flooding.

[Tomaaz]

To me, VB.NET above is the world's second best BASIC after VB6 in the year of 2016.

Firstly - this topic is not about "the best BASIC". Sorry, you've totally misunderstood my first post. Secondly - all people who've already answered in this topic, tend to disagree with you. 

EDIT Let's imagine that Julia developers did name their language "Julia BASIC". I'm 100% sure that the language would get much more attention here. Even if, apart from the name, it would be exactly the same language. Do you understand what I'm talking about, now?

[n00b]

@jj2007 - I am not arguing that these are indeed useful and arguably necessary for modern software development. But that is also why I feel BASIC and BASIC-like languages are good starting points for new programmers. I used callbacks in rcbasic. As far as classes go, I think they are overused and makes alot of code unreadable. Google is notorious for this. I know how to construct a class but in I have only found it useful if I was using an API that depends on overwriting classes to do anything  (ie. WxWidgets).  But I don't think OO makes an API easier to use and it definitely doesn't effect its speed or efficiency. I have used threads in a few programs but I would say for a majority of code I have seen that used them, there was a better solution. They are necessary for OS, next-gen games, and lots of modern applications, but they are not a concept that someone should dive into until they get some experience with basic concepts. The original BASIC was designed to teach students in non computer science fields how a computer works. It has evolved since then, but that mentality is why I think BASIC still has a following. Although I personally think everyone should avoid modern Microsoft dialects as they are simply java without semicolons.

[Tomaaz]

The original BASIC was designed to teach students in non computer science fields how a computer works.

I think that the original goal was to let ordinary users to start programming and do something creative with their machines. That's why BASIC was easy and human readable. To understand how computer works, you had to move to assembly at some point.

[Aurel]

O

[Tomaaz]

Visual Basic is BASIC based on BASIC...

  So, VB.NET is BASIC based on Visual Basic that is BASIC based on BASIC. 

and i really don't understand why you think that language name is so
important 

Well, I said something quite opposite. The name is not important to me, so they can name VB.NET "The Most BASIC-like Visual BASIC based on BASIC" and, for me, it still won't be BASIC. 

...only maybe because there is no interest here for languages presented
in your topics so you kinda dissappointed

Of course, that's the reason! I would like to know why you're not interested in languages that are more BASICs than majority of, so called, "BASIC dialects".