[Info-vax] Any stronger versions of the LMF planned ?, was: Re: LMF Licence Generator Code

[Dave Froble]

On 8/9/2021 7:59 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 8/8/21 9:23 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 8/8/2021 7:07 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>
>>> Not exactly true.  While modern BASIC has c ome a long way it
>>> will never escape its roots which were not in the IT Production
>>> world.  Like Pascal it was intended to teach concepts and,
>>> believe it or not, one of those concepts was not programming
>>> per se.
>>
>> Interesting statement.  Coming from someone who admits to not being
>> familiar with the language.
>
> Misunderstanding, again.  What I am is not an expert in VMS BASIC.
> I have used BASIC since the Kemeny/Kurtz days.  I have done real
> production work using BASIC on everything from Micros to Mainframes.
> I have done business, financial and engineering programming in BASIC.
>
>>
>> Perhaps older implementations of Basic were as described.
>
> I stated that modern BASIC had improved but that doesn't change the
> original purpose.  The idea of "fixing" these languages (like they
> also tried with Pascal even after the original author of Pascal
> gave them an alternative) is little more than a band-aid when you
> consider there were/are languages designed to do the work people
> try to do with these languages.
>
>>
>> Some time back, as I recall things, some of the compiler people at DEC
>> asked the question, "why cannot every language be able to do what
>> others do?".  The result was the implementation of many new features
>> in Basic.
>
> Exactly.  "Lets put a band-aid on the language rather than do the proper
> software engineering task of choosing the right tool for the job."
>
>>
>> Sadly, not unsigned integers.
>
> Sometimes having a feature can result in some interesting errors.  I
> have seen them, caused by unsigned integers, personally.
>
>>
>> Also sadly, some of the performance inhibitors in Basic, such as the
>> issue when returning from a subprogram.
>>
>> So, I'd ask for you to explain your statement.
>>
>
> Simple: Choose the right tool for the job.
> BASIC, like Pascal was intended to teach certain concepts.  It was
> not intended as a production language.  Production languages existed,
> even when BASIC and Pascal were created.  In those days, new languages
> weren't just ego trips.  They were designed for particular tasks.
> They should be used for the tasks they were designed for. That is
> a major part of real software engineering.
>
> bill
>
>
>

You seem to be implying that VMS Basic is not a "right tool for the 
job".  Does your opinion (that's what it is) out weight the opinions of 
others?  There have been and still are many serious applications 
implemented using VMS Basic.  Are all those people who use VMS Basic 
"wrong"?

Who gets to decide?

-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef at tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486