Message-ID: <005201bc5a62$1fcf37a0$3df8c6c3@johans-dator>
From: "Johan Henriksson" <johan DOT he AT telia DOT com>
To: <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: games programming
Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 23:10:53 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

from Johan Henriksson, Sweden    HTTP://come.to/jhewok  |
Primary mail: johan DOT he AT telia DOT com                  #UIN 12035895
Second: jhe75 AT hotmail DOT com    Third: johan_he AT yahoo DOT com
Leadprogrammer and FX-specialist at Real software
http://come.to/real_software
*************************************************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: Crewden <root AT 127 DOT 0 DOT 0 DOT 1>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Date: Thursday, May 06, 1999 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: games programming


>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.

hahaha! I remember me very happy when I found the 40x25-mode in QB. It made
chargames look quite _a lot_ nicer.

>
>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!!!.  ;)

What? You don't like the old basic? Try GWBasic then ;)

>
>
>
>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
>+
>
>