[Info-vax] Programming languages on VMS

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 1/24/2018 3:34 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 01/24/2018 02:57 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 1/24/2018 2:42 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 01/24/2018 02:34 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 1/24/2018 12:26 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> On 01/24/2018 11:47 AM, DaveFroble wrote:
>>>>>> While not very good at performance, compiler wasn't written for 
>>>>>> performance, Basic can do most of that stuff very well, and much 
>>>>>> more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Much the same comparison can be made with your "bus off a cliff" 
>>>>>> comment, when looking at "the professionals" here and their 
>>>>>> attitude toward Basic, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Given what it was designed for BASIC was never taken seriously.  Even
>>>>> after ANSIfication it was still not overly practical as most versions
>>>>> were interpreted and not compiled.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm.
>>>>
>>>> Basic went compiled even on PC's around 1990.
>>>>
>>>> GW-Basic and QBasic were interpreted.
>>>>
>>>> But QuickBasic 1985 could optionally compile.
>>>>
>>>> TurboBasic 1989 compiled.
>>>>
>>>> VB 1991 compiled.
>>>>
>>>> Long time ago.
>>>
>>> Are you even aware of how many different versions of BASIC there
>>> still are around today?  Many micro-controllers still run on
>>> basic.  Other (non-COTS) systems still ship running BASIC.
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> But does it really matter if those "thingies" run
>> Basic interpreted?
>>
> 
> Not sure I understand the question.  Those "thingies" run a lot
> of other devices and they only come with interpreted BASIC.  Not
> all currently used BASIC is compiled.

You said:

# it was still not overly practical as most versions were interpreted 
and not compiled

I can understand that DF's application may not run well as
interpreted.

But that type of Basic applications has been compiled for
like 30 years.

The "thingies" you mention may still run Basic interpreted.

But is that a problem that makes Basic "not overly practical"
for them?

Arne