Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/05/06/14:50:33
It has been a log time since I used Applesoft BASIC.
I do remember there was a DEFFN but I don't recall exactly what it was
capable of. Math style functions, kind of one-liners I think, but not
the kind of functions as described by C/Pascal.
A friend of mine used to program with QBASIC, and I do recall there
being functions and more flow control support. Loops with the same
functionality as do/whiles and switch statments. QBASIC provides
enough mechanisms for flow control so that you didn't need to use line
numbers (which it also supports).
Applesoft basic as I recall had "for" loops. Any other kind of loop
or flow control you had to contruct from if statements and goto
commands.
Though I don't recall it particularly forcing structure upon the
programmer. My friend proved that QBASIC was quite capabile of
allowing you to write the same spagetti code that was run-of-the-mill
for Applesoft BASIC code.
You've probably been doing this longer than I have. Though I recall
the IIgs being (at least in terms of BASIC programming) not a lot
better than a IIc/e,etc. But I was fortunite enough to have one at
home. So I pretty much had the 80 columns when I started. I did do a
bunch of II BASIC as well, and can understand why it would be exciting
to get out of 40 column mode, it used to drive my nutz on the school's
II.
I remember entering the huge BASIC program that allows you to input
the HEX code listings supplied by Compute (I think) magazine. I
entered many pages hex notated machine code just so I could have a
program that would allow me to scroll the BASIC code to my programs
not only DOWN up "oh my god" I could scroll UP now!!!. ;)
On Thu, 6 May 1999 09:42:49 -0700, "Bob Roseman"
<BadBobR AT worldnet DOT att DOT net> wrote:
+
+Crewden wrote in message <37307f1e DOT 322573486 AT server>...
+>
+> The BASIC, at least the kind I remember (Applesoft
+>basic) has little if any structure. There are no functions
+>(subroutines yes;functions no) all variables are global, no
+>switch/case statements. The structure of the BASIC I learned on is
+>actually worse (believe it or not) that that of Assembly.
+
+Applesoft did have a DEFine FuNction. What did you do with it? :-)
+I don't remember if Integer Basic had it or not.
+Qbasic (PC) forced more structure on the user, and therefor was
harder to
+learn for beginers, for which the original language was developed.
+When Applesoft came out there was no case to switch. I remember how
excited
+I was when I added a card to get lower case and 80 char wide lines
(good
+ol' Ultraterm card, Apple II+)
+
+
+>Some of the newer BASIC programming languages like VB are structured
+>and most often don't even have line numbers. That is to say, a lot
of
+>the new BASIC languages are more like Pascal.
+
+VB is not a 'BASIC language', but a hybrid.
+
+>In short, if it's the kind of BASIC without functions and has line
+>numbers, don't him use it for too long before moving on to one of
the
+>better highlevel languages such as Pascal/C/Java (recommended in
that
+>order) or and any other language that is not BASIC, Assembly, or god
+>help you COBOL.
+
+He should use BASIC until he understands loops and branches.
+
+Bob R
+
- Raw text -