The "new age" of html?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by richard, Jan 1, 2009.

  1. richard

    richard Guest

    As you may know, I am a big big fan of Basic. Even more so now with
    the advent of "liberty basic". www.libertybasic.com

    Carl Gundel, the author has taken his version of basic into the next
    level and is now competing with php, javascript, python and asp.

    With minimal knowledge of html and basic, you can create your own
    website using basic right on your PC. I plan on converting my oldies
    site using this method. As it has the capability of utilizing a simple
    database I can create tables of information on the page without the
    need of reloading the page, iframes or division swapping.

    Anyone use it now or interested?

    www.runbasic.com
     
    richard, Jan 1, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. richard

    Jani Guest

    On 1 Jan., 19:04, richard <> wrote:
    > As you may know, I am a big big fan of Basic. Even more so now with
    > the advent of "liberty basic".www.libertybasic.com
    >
    > Carl Gundel, the author has taken his version of basic into the next
    > level and is now competing with php, javascript, python and asp.
    >
    > With minimal knowledge of html and basic, you can create your own
    > website using basic right on your PC. I plan on converting my oldies
    > site using this method. As it has the capability of utilizing a simple
    > database I can create tables of information on the page without the
    > need of reloading the page, iframes or division swapping.
    >
    > Anyone use it now or interested?
    >
    > www.runbasic.com



    Anything which is fun should be done! (o;
     
    Jani, Jan 1, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On 2009-01-01, richard wrote:
    > As you may know, I am a big big fan of Basic. Even more so now with
    > the advent of "liberty basic". www.libertybasic.com
    >
    > Carl Gundel, the author has taken his version of basic into the next
    > level and is now competing with php, javascript, python and asp.
    >
    > With minimal knowledge of html and basic, you can create your own
    > website using basic right on your PC.


    I can do that with any text editor.

    > I plan on converting my oldies site using this method. As it has the
    > capability of utilizing a simple database I can create tables of
    > information on the page without the need of reloading the page,
    > iframes or division swapping.
    >
    > Anyone use it now or interested?


    No, it will not run on my system.


    --
    Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
    ===================================================================
    Author:
    Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
     
    Chris F.A. Johnson, Jan 1, 2009
    #3
  4. richard

    Jani Guest

    On 2 Jan., 03:19, wrote:
    > Jani wrote:
    >
    > >richard wrote:

    >
    > >> As you may know, I am a big big fan of Basic. Even more so now with
    > >> the advent of "liberty basic".www.libertybasic.com

    >
    > >> Carl Gundel, the author has taken his version of basic into the next
    > >> level and is now competing with php, javascript, python and asp.

    >
    > >> With minimal knowledge of html and basic, you can create your own
    > >> website using basic right on your PC. I plan on converting my oldies
    > >> site using this method. As it has the capability of utilizing a simple
    > >> database I can create tables of information on the page without the
    > >> need of reloading the page, iframes or division swapping.

    >
    > >> Anyone use it now or interested?

    >
    > >>www.runbasic.com

    >
    > Most people don't need any sort of programming language for the web.
    > plain old HTML webpages work fine for most people.
    >
    > If you want something to run on a standard Apache or IIS server
    > of the type you get when you buy hosting, it won't have Runbasic
    > available. My hosting provider gives me PHP, Perl, Python, C,
    > C++, Tcl, CGI and all the standard Apahce features.  No Runbasic.
    >
    > If you are willing to buy a dedicated server or virtual server,
    > you can run what you like, but PoweBASIC is only slightly more
    > expensive that Runbasic, and is far more powerful and efficient.
    > Even so, Python is usually a better choice thatn either Runbasic
    > or PowerBASIC for web applications.  
    >
    > None of these are competitors for javascript or Java, which run
    > on the client, not the server.  
    >
    > I do not believe your claim that Runbasic has "the capability of
    > utilizing a simple [which] can create tables of information on
    > the page without the need of reloading the page, iframes or division
    > swapping."  


    hm... ya... But anyway... The massive use of IP addresses will
    supposed to be integrated into normal electronic devices (like fridge,
    garage door, DVD recorder, mobile phone, fish tank, sun shield).
    So maybe the browser will loose its value as an interface
    ___EYES2SCREEN___. You simply take your USB jack to your office or to
    the weekend house outside in the village or the data will be
    synchronize over the provider.

    If you miss a real sense in what I am writing... I only want to
    express that e.g. Java was invented for white goods and that DW is not
    yet a CSS - Editor, which you can use as a newbie to CSS. So the idea
    to cope with HTML in a "new" way (like richard say ["new age"]) is
    quite well while other difficult people are not able to find together
    a common solution.

    I think e.g. it would be a great thing to have a huge book shelf and
    on your webshop your customer can view it with the webcam. Sometimes
    all those forms and database searching results need strong eyes. And
    you get tired. You miss something old fashioned maybe. A snooty-nosed
    little upstart needs a real shop to browse some time for what he is
    looking for. He want to sit down into his big snoozle room, having a
    cool drink in hot summernight and viewing all those books of my shop
    projected in his hologram.

    So you can not forget the military aspect when any shit (ups... lets
    say "poison") turns into nectar.
     
    Jani, Jan 2, 2009
    #4
  5. richard

    libbasic Guest

    On Jan 1, 9:19 pm, wrote:
    > Jani wrote:
    >
    > >richard wrote:

    >
    > >> As you may know, I am a big big fan of Basic. Even more so now with
    > >> the advent of "liberty basic".www.libertybasic.com

    >
    > >> Carl Gundel, the author has taken his version of basic into the next
    > >> level and is now competing with php, javascript, python and asp.

    >
    > >> With minimal knowledge of html and basic, you can create your own
    > >> website using basic right on your PC. I plan on converting my oldies
    > >> site using this method. As it has the capability of utilizing a simple
    > >> database I can create tables of information on the page without the
    > >> need of reloading the page, iframes or division swapping.

    >
    > >> Anyone use it now or interested?

    >
    > >>www.runbasic.com

    >
    > Most people don't need any sort of programming language for the web.
    > plain old HTML webpages work fine for most people.


    That's fair, and perhaps Run BASIC isn't really on topic for this
    group except that HTML can be a gateway to real programming, and Run
    BASIC is a perfectly good next step.

    > If you want something to run on a standard Apache or IIS server
    > of the type you get when you buy hosting, it won't have Runbasic
    > available. My hosting provider gives me PHP, Perl, Python, C,
    > C++, Tcl, CGI and all the standard Apahce features.  No Runbasic.


    Well, not yet anyways. ;-) However you can download Run BASIC for
    free and try it out on your own computer. Some of our users like the
    free version. Some actually host their own server from home, and some
    use the runbasicnet.com hosting service.

    > If you are willing to buy a dedicated server or virtual server,
    > you can run what you like, but PoweBASIC is only slightly more
    > expensive that Runbasic, and is far more powerful and efficient.


    PowerBASIC is a very nice product, and I have used it for some of my
    own projects. It isn't a web development system so it may be more
    efficient at something, but Run BASIC is more efficient for web
    development.

    > Even so, Python is usually a better choice thatn either Runbasic
    > or PowerBASIC for web applications.  


    What is your justification for saying this? If someone asks which
    tool is better for a given job the answer is almost always "It
    depends." Run BASIC is specifically designed for building and hosting
    web apps, and it is designed to be very easy for the beginner.
    Several of our customers are very enthusiastically embracing Run BASIC
    after coming from more popular options like PHP.

    > None of these are competitors for javascript or Java, which run
    > on the client, not the server.  
    >
    > I do not believe your claim that Runbasic has "the capability of
    > utilizing a simple [which] can create tables of information on
    > the page without the need of reloading the page, iframes or division
    > swapping."  - Hide quoted text -


    I'm not quite sure what Richard meant by this. What Run BASIC does
    well is simplify web development. It includes a lot of useful
    capabilities in a single install, and it hides complexity behind a
    simple interface.

    -Carl Gundel
    http://www.runbasic.com
     
    libbasic, Jan 4, 2009
    #5
  6. richard

    richard Guest

    On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 16:07:10 -0800 (PST), libbasic
    <> wrote:

    >On Jan 1, 9:19 pm, wrote:
    >> Jani wrote:
    >>
    >> >richard wrote:

    >>
    >> >> As you may know, I am a big big fan of Basic. Even more so now with
    >> >> the advent of "liberty basic".www.libertybasic.com

    >>
    >> >> Carl Gundel, the author has taken his version of basic into the next
    >> >> level and is now competing with php, javascript, python and asp.

    >>
    >> >> With minimal knowledge of html and basic, you can create your own
    >> >> website using basic right on your PC. I plan on converting my oldies
    >> >> site using this method. As it has the capability of utilizing a simple
    >> >> database I can create tables of information on the page without the
    >> >> need of reloading the page, iframes or division swapping.

    >>
    >> >> Anyone use it now or interested?

    >>
    >> >>www.runbasic.com

    >>
    >> Most people don't need any sort of programming language for the web.
    >> plain old HTML webpages work fine for most people.

    >
    >That's fair, and perhaps Run BASIC isn't really on topic for this
    >group except that HTML can be a gateway to real programming, and Run
    >BASIC is a perfectly good next step.
    >
    >> If you want something to run on a standard Apache or IIS server
    >> of the type you get when you buy hosting, it won't have Runbasic
    >> available. My hosting provider gives me PHP, Perl, Python, C,
    >> C++, Tcl, CGI and all the standard Apahce features.  No Runbasic.

    >
    >Well, not yet anyways. ;-) However you can download Run BASIC for
    >free and try it out on your own computer. Some of our users like the
    >free version. Some actually host their own server from home, and some
    >use the runbasicnet.com hosting service.
    >
    >> If you are willing to buy a dedicated server or virtual server,
    >> you can run what you like, but PoweBASIC is only slightly more
    >> expensive that Runbasic, and is far more powerful and efficient.

    >
    >PowerBASIC is a very nice product, and I have used it for some of my
    >own projects. It isn't a web development system so it may be more
    >efficient at something, but Run BASIC is more efficient for web
    >development.
    >
    >> Even so, Python is usually a better choice thatn either Runbasic
    >> or PowerBASIC for web applications.  

    >
    >What is your justification for saying this? If someone asks which
    >tool is better for a given job the answer is almost always "It
    >depends." Run BASIC is specifically designed for building and hosting
    >web apps, and it is designed to be very easy for the beginner.
    >Several of our customers are very enthusiastically embracing Run BASIC
    >after coming from more popular options like PHP.
    >
    >> None of these are competitors for javascript or Java, which run
    >> on the client, not the server.  
    >>
    >> I do not believe your claim that Runbasic has "the capability of
    >> utilizing a simple [which] can create tables of information on
    >> the page without the need of reloading the page, iframes or division
    >> swapping."  - Hide quoted text -

    >
    >I'm not quite sure what Richard meant by this. What Run BASIC does
    >well is simplify web development. It includes a lot of useful
    >capabilities in a single install, and it hides complexity behind a
    >simple interface.
    >
    >-Carl Gundel
    >http://www.runbasic.com



    Allow me to introduce y'all to the author of "run basic".
    As well as "Liberty Basic".
    If I am wrong about how runbasic will implement my ideas, feel free to
    correct me carl.

    I had made a comment on the LB board about being able to create tables
    that would magically be recreated "on the fly" rather than with the
    standard need for html to swap divisions or use iframes. Alyce
    responded graphically that it could.

    Take for example, your "firstTable" project in the free edition and
    add that to the "button" command example. Click button one shows table
    one, clicking button two shows table two. Without leaving the page.
    Right?
     
    richard, Jan 4, 2009
    #6
  7. richard

    libbasic Guest

    On Jan 3, 11:17 pm, richard <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 16:07:10 -0800 (PST), libbasic
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Jan 1, 9:19 pm, wrote:
    > >> Jani wrote:

    >
    > >> >richard wrote:

    >
    > >> >> As you may know, I am a big big fan of Basic. Even more so now with
    > >> >> the advent of "liberty basic".www.libertybasic.com

    >
    > >> >> Carl Gundel, the author has taken his version of basic into the next
    > >> >> level and is now competing with php, javascript, python and asp.

    >
    > >> >> With minimal knowledge of html and basic, you can create your own
    > >> >> website using basic right on your PC. I plan on converting my oldies
    > >> >> site using this method. As it has the capability of utilizing a simple
    > >> >> database I can create tables of information on the page without the
    > >> >> need of reloading the page, iframes or division swapping.

    >
    > >> >> Anyone use it now or interested?

    >
    > >> >>www.runbasic.com

    >
    > >> Most people don't need any sort of programming language for the web.
    > >> plain old HTML webpages work fine for most people.

    >
    > >That's fair, and perhaps Run BASIC isn't really on topic for this
    > >group except that HTML can be a gateway to real programming, and Run
    > >BASIC is a perfectly good next step.

    >
    > >> If you want something to run on a standard Apache or IIS server
    > >> of the type you get when you buy hosting, it won't have Runbasic
    > >> available. My hosting provider gives me PHP, Perl, Python, C,
    > >> C++, Tcl, CGI and all the standard Apahce features.  No Runbasic.

    >
    > >Well, not yet anyways.  ;-)  However you can download Run BASIC for
    > >free and try it out on your own computer.  Some of our users like the
    > >free version.  Some actually host their own server from home, and some
    > >use the runbasicnet.com hosting service.

    >
    > >> If you are willing to buy a dedicated server or virtual server,
    > >> you can run what you like, but PoweBASIC is only slightly more
    > >> expensive that Runbasic, and is far more powerful and efficient.

    >
    > >PowerBASIC is a very nice product, and I have used it for some of my
    > >own projects.  It isn't a web development system so it may be more
    > >efficient at something, but Run BASIC is more efficient for web
    > >development.

    >
    > >> Even so, Python is usually a better choice thatn either Runbasic
    > >> or PowerBASIC for web applications.  

    >
    > >What is your justification for saying this?  If someone asks which
    > >tool is better for a given job the answer is almost always "It
    > >depends."  Run BASIC is specifically designed for building and hosting
    > >web apps, and it is designed to be very easy for the beginner.
    > >Several of our customers are very enthusiastically embracing Run BASIC
    > >after coming from more popular options like PHP.

    >
    > >> None of these are competitors for javascript or Java, which run
    > >> on the client, not the server.  

    >
    > >> I do not believe your claim that Runbasic has "the capability of
    > >> utilizing a simple [which] can create tables of information on
    > >> the page without the need of reloading the page, iframes or division
    > >> swapping."  - Hide quoted text -

    >
    > >I'm not quite sure what Richard meant by this.  What Run BASIC does
    > >well is simplify web development.  It includes a lot of useful
    > >capabilities in a single install, and it hides complexity behind a
    > >simple interface.

    >
    > >-Carl Gundel
    > >http://www.runbasic.com

    >
    > Allow me to introduce y'all to the author of "run basic".
    > As well as "Liberty Basic".
    > If I am wrong about how runbasic will implement my ideas, feel free to
    > correct me carl.
    >
    > I had made a comment on the LB board about being able to create tables
    > that would magically be recreated "on the fly" rather than with the
    > standard need for html to swap divisions or use iframes. Alyce
    > responded graphically that it could.
    >
    > Take for example, your "firstTable" project in the free edition and
    > add that to the "button" command example. Click button one shows table
    > one, clicking button two shows table two. Without leaving the page.
    > Right?- Hide quoted text -


    Probably the best way to explain this is that Run BASIC manages the
    web page for you. You don't need to regenerate the page from scratch
    each time. The HTML is generated for you, but you can inject any
    additional markup you might want. It's hard to explain, so I'd
    recommend that interested readers just go and watch the videos of Run
    BASIC in use.

    -Carl Gundel
    http://www.runbasic.com
     
    libbasic, Jan 4, 2009
    #7
  8. Ben C wrote:

    > But don't things like Perl, Python, Tcl, Ruby come with tons of
    > libraries for doing everything you could ever want to do for web
    > programming?


    Perl:

    #!/usr/bin/perl -w
    use strict;
    use CGI qw:)standard -no_xhtml);

    print header,html(head(title('Foo')),body(h1('A Simple Page'),p('This is
    pretty simple!')));

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Jan 5, 2009
    #8
  9. richard

    richard Guest

    On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:50:02 -0600, Ben C <> wrote:

    >On 2009-01-04, Guy Macon <http> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I have looked at Run BASIC a lot more closely, and I wish to
    >> modify and revise my stated opinion of it vs. other languages.
    >>
    >> The other languages I mentioned (PowerBASIC, Python) as well
    >> as another fine product that I missed (FreeBASIC) are all fine
    >> products, but they are general-purpose tools, while Run BASIC
    >> is optimized for web programming (The author of Run BASIC has
    >> a general purpose tool as well, Liberty BASIC).
    >>
    >> By being purpose-built for web programming, Run Basic does
    >> a bunch of stuff automatically that I would have to program
    >> in with a more general purpose language.

    >
    >But don't things like Perl, Python, Tcl, Ruby come with tons of
    >libraries for doing everything you could ever want to do for web
    >programming?
    >
    >Whether you build things into the language itself or put them in
    >libraries usually doesn't make much difference (and the distinction is
    >quite blurred anyway for some languages, e.g. Tcl).
    >
    >> So, upon reflection,
    >> Run BASIC is a better tool for person who wants to do web
    >> programming with the simplicity of a BASIC language.
    >> [ http://www.runbasic.com/ ].
    >>
    >> A couple of comments for Carl Gundel:
    >>
    >> your FAQ says this:
    >>
    >> Q - Can I use Run BASIC to create applications that work with
    >> GoDaddy or other webhosting companies?
    >>
    >> A - You will need to ask your webhosting company if they permit
    >> the installation of custom software like Run BASIC.
    >>
    >> You might wish to mention that even if a hosting company does not
    >> allow you to install Run BASIC on their servers, they may offer
    >> virtual servers (you get an entire operating system and web server
    >> running on a virtual machine) that let you run anything you wish.

    >
    >Why not just implement the Run BASIC interpreter in Perl? Then it could
    >run on any server that lets you run Perl.



    BASIC is by far a simpler language to understand. In these newer
    versions Carl has made it so that most modern needs are easily met and
    conform to the BASIC outline.

    If you download the free version and try out a few of the included
    sample projects, you'll quickly see how simple it is to learn.
    You know what it takes to do a simplye "button" right?
    In run basic all you do is define the button with a few attributes and
    you're done.
    The publishing of the page takes care of actual coding.
     
    richard, Jan 5, 2009
    #9
  10. On 2009-01-05, richard wrote:
    ....
    > BASIC is by far a simpler language to understand. In these newer
    > versions Carl has made it so that most modern needs are easily met and
    > conform to the BASIC outline.
    >
    > If you download the free version and try out a few of the included
    > sample projects, you'll quickly see how simple it is to learn.
    > You know what it takes to do a simplye "button" right?
    > In run basic all you do is define the button with a few attributes and
    > you're done.


    It does look interesting, but if even the author of the language
    cannot code without using goto, it's far too primitive for real
    programming.

    --
    Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
    ===================================================================
    Author:
    Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
     
    Chris F.A. Johnson, Jan 5, 2009
    #10
  11. richard

    libbasic Guest

    On Jan 4, 9:43 pm, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <> wrote:
    > On 2009-01-05, richard wrote:
    > > BASIC is by far a simpler language to understand. In these newer
    > > versions Carl has made it so that most modern needs are easily met and
    > > conform to the BASIC outline.

    >
    > > If you download the free version and try out a few of the included
    > > sample projects, you'll quickly see how simple it is to learn.
    > > You know what it takes to do a simplye "button" right?
    > > In run basic all you do is define the button with a few attributes and
    > > you're done.

    >
    >    It does look interesting, but if even the author of the language
    >    cannot code without using goto, it's far too primitive for real
    >    programming.


    Run BASIC supports structured programming. GOTO is strictly optional
    but hey, this is BASIC right? ;-)

    -Carl Gundel
    http://www.runbasic.com
     
    libbasic, Jan 5, 2009
    #11
  12. richard

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 1 Jan, 21:12, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <> wrote:

    > > With minimal knowledge of html and basic, you can create your own
    > > website using basic right on your PC.

    >
    >    I can do that with any text editor.


    I can't. I'm increasingly finding that I cannot build my sites quickly
    enough, or flexibly enough, in static HTML. Coding from scratch is
    almost never the answer to anything. Even CMS has never really
    delivered on its promises, nor have portal platforms like Zope. More
    and more I'm finding that the "right" level of abstraction for
    "Getting the job done" is a powerful wiki, by which I mean MediaWiki
    (same one behind Wikipedia).

    This is just one opinion, from a corner of the world concerned with
    commercial in-house intranets broadly used for "knowledge
    sharing"(sic). I'd be interested in others' comments.
     
    Andy Dingley, Jan 5, 2009
    #12
  13. richard

    libbasic Guest

    On Jan 5, 6:12 am, Andy Dingley <> wrote:
    > On 1 Jan, 21:12, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <> wrote:
    >
    > > > With minimal knowledge of html and basic, you can create your own
    > > > website using basic right on your PC.

    >
    > >    I can do that with any text editor.

    >
    > I can't. I'm increasingly finding that I cannot build my sites quickly
    > enough, or flexibly enough, in static HTML. Coding from scratch is
    > almost never the answer to anything. Even CMS has never really
    > delivered on its promises, nor have portal platforms like Zope. More
    > and more I'm finding that the "right" level of abstraction for
    > "Getting the job done" is a powerful wiki, by which I mean MediaWiki
    > (same one behind Wikipedia).


    I'm sure that it depends on the sorts of problems you're trying to
    solve. For example a friend of mine needed to create an outline to
    track project dependencies. He's not really a programmer so he
    decided to do this with a wiki. The trouble is that it isn't
    automated enough and it isn't smart enough. Sometimes you really do
    need an application and not just a document.

    > This is just one opinion, from a corner of the world concerned with
    > commercial in-house intranets broadly used for "knowledge
    > sharing"(sic). I'd be interested in others' comments.


    Wikis are great for knowledge sharing but they can suffer the same
    feature creep as other platforms. I built a wiki using Run BASIC that
    is used to host a local community website. The fellow who runs the
    site asks for more interactive features. It's not too hard to give
    him what he wants because I have the source code. So when does this
    system stop being a wiki and start being a CMS? The line between the
    two moves and gets blurrier.

    -Carl Gundel
    http://www.runbasic.com
     
    libbasic, Jan 5, 2009
    #13
  14. richard

    libbasic Guest

    On Jan 4, 5:50 pm, Ben C <> wrote:
    > On 2009-01-04, Guy Macon <http> wrote:
    > > I have looked at Run BASIC a lot more closely, and I wish to
    > > modify and revise my stated opinion of it vs. other languages.

    >
    > > The other languages I mentioned (PowerBASIC, Python) as well
    > > as another fine product that I missed (FreeBASIC) are all fine
    > > products, but they are general-purpose tools, while Run BASIC
    > > is optimized for web programming (The author of Run BASIC has
    > > a general purpose tool as well, Liberty BASIC).

    >
    > > By being purpose-built for web programming, Run Basic does
    > > a bunch of stuff automatically that I would have to program
    > > in with a more general purpose language.

    >
    > But don't things like Perl, Python, Tcl, Ruby come with tons of
    > libraries for doing everything you could ever want to do for web
    > programming?
    >
    > Whether you build things into the language itself or put them in
    > libraries usually doesn't make much difference (and the distinction is
    > quite blurred anyway for some languages, e.g. Tcl).


    It's not just a matter of building things into the language. The
    language is itself built into a web appserver. All the session, state
    and control flow related stuff is taken care of for you
    transparently. Did you watch the videos on the Run BASIC home page?

    > Why not just implement the Run BASIC interpreter in Perl? Then it could
    > run on any server that lets you run Perl.


    You could implement the language in Perl and it might even be useful
    for something, but that wouldn't buy you the integration that Run
    BASIC does. I'm not trying to say that Run BASIC is better than Perl
    or other languages, just different enough to be better for some
    projects and to be appealing to some people.

    -Carl Gundel
    http://www.runbasic.com
     
    libbasic, Jan 5, 2009
    #14
  15. richard

    libbasic Guest

    On Jan 5, 1:47 pm, Ben C <> wrote:
    > But I'm not sure that many of the 80's home-computer basickers really
    > took to VB because it was BASIC. And I don't think BASIC is per se any
    > easier for the would-be programmer to understand than say Python. Most
    > people teach their kids Python these days, but it's still the first
    > language of choice for many "grown-up" programmers too.


    Your point is?

    Python is a fine language, but in no way does that fact diminish BASIC
    as a language choice. The original post mentioned Run BASIC
    enthusiastically as a web language. He wasn't plugging BASIC for its
    own sake. Run BASIC as a web language is worth mentioning because it
    is not a "me too" offering. It does things in an interestingly
    different way.

    -Carl Gundel
    http://www.runbasic.com
     
    libbasic, Jan 5, 2009
    #15
  16. richard

    richard Guest

    On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 02:43:13 +0000, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
    <> wrote:

    >On 2009-01-05, richard wrote:
    >...
    >> BASIC is by far a simpler language to understand. In these newer
    >> versions Carl has made it so that most modern needs are easily met and
    >> conform to the BASIC outline.
    >>
    >> If you download the free version and try out a few of the included
    >> sample projects, you'll quickly see how simple it is to learn.
    >> You know what it takes to do a simplye "button" right?
    >> In run basic all you do is define the button with a few attributes and
    >> you're done.

    >
    > It does look interesting, but if even the author of the language
    > cannot code without using goto, it's far too primitive for real
    > programming.



    Several items are left overs from the original BASIC such as goto.
    In the original BASIC line numbering was mandatory. Which made "goto"
    an invaluable tool.
    e.g. If a=b then goto 100.
    Now you would see if a=b then [label]. Line numbers are meaningless.

    Years ago in the original BASIC, I had written a sort routine.
    Now that same sort routine is a simple command.

    I've written numerous programs and I must say, Liberty Basic is one
    hell of a speed demon, specially on an AMD processor.
     
    richard, Jan 5, 2009
    #16
  17. richard

    libbasic Guest

    On Jan 5, 3:29 pm, Ben C <> wrote:
    > On 2009-01-05, libbasic <> wrote:
    > > On Jan 5, 1:47 pm, Ben C <> wrote:
    > >> But I'm not sure that many of the 80's home-computer basickers really
    > >> took to VB because it was BASIC. And I don't think BASIC is per se any
    > >> easier for the would-be programmer to understand than say Python. Most
    > >> people teach their kids Python these days, but it's still the first
    > >> language of choice for many "grown-up" programmers too.

    >
    > > Your point is?

    >
    > Well it's interesting that a good kid's language turns out to be just a
    > good language generally.
    >
    > And the other point is, why use BASIC? It was a perfect choice on the
    > 80s home computer, but what is there to recommend it today?


    -Modern BASIC is a structured language (and I don't mean VB.Net which
    can hardly be called BASIC)
    -It's great for small scale or personal projects
    -There are a lot of resources for it
    -A lot of people like it

    I think that one really interesting cultural aspect of BASIC is that
    there are literally hundreds of implementations of it. I think it's
    great that so many creative people are so involved in the BASIC
    community. The evolution of the language isn't decided by committee.
    Look at the direction that Microsoft has applied to VB, or consider
    where Sun has taken Java. :-/

    > > Python is a fine language, but in no way does that fact diminish BASIC
    > > as a language choice.  The original post mentioned Run BASIC
    > > enthusiastically as a web language.  He wasn't plugging BASIC for its
    > > own sake.  Run BASIC as a web language is worth mentioning because it
    > > is not a "me too" offering.  It does things in an interestingly
    > > different way.

    >
    > I have nothing against Run BASIC. It does look interesting and
    > different and even quite fun.


    Thanks. I'm eager to see where we can take it. ;-)

    -Carl Gundel
    http://www.runbasic.com
     
    libbasic, Jan 5, 2009
    #17
  18. richard

    libbasic Guest

    On Jan 5, 5:15 pm, Ben C <> wrote:
    > On 2009-01-05, richard <> wrote:
    > > On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 02:43:13 +0000, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
    > ><> wrote:

    >
    > >>On 2009-01-05, richard wrote:
    > >>...
    > >>> BASIC is by far a simpler language to understand. In these newer
    > >>> versions Carl has made it so that most modern needs are easily met and
    > >>> conform to the BASIC outline.

    >
    > >>> If you download the free version and try out a few of the included
    > >>> sample projects, you'll quickly see how simple it is to learn.
    > >>> You know what it takes to do a simplye "button" right?
    > >>> In run basic all you do is define the button with a few attributes and
    > >>> you're done.

    >
    > >>   It does look interesting, but if even the author of the language
    > >>   cannot code without using goto, it's far too primitive for real
    > >>   programming.

    >
    > > Several items are left overs from the original BASIC such as goto.
    > > In the original BASIC line numbering was mandatory. Which made "goto"
    > > an invaluable tool.
    > > e.g. If a=b then goto 100.
    > > Now you would see if a=b then [label].

    >
    > But that's essentially the same as "if a=b then goto label". The
    > objection to goto has nothing to do with line numbers-- it's more a fear
    > of spaghetti and unstructured programming.
    >
    > So long as you have at least GOSUB in BASIC, and preferably named
    > subroutines with locals and arguments (which it looks like Liberty Basic
    > does have) then I would say it supports structured programming perfectly
    > well.
    >
    > > Line numbers are meaningless.

    >
    > Line numbers were as much a part of the text-editing environment on the
    > old home computers as they were part of the language. Later BASICs just
    > used labels instead.


    It's true and sometimes I still meet people who are uncomfortable
    unless their BASIC can use line numbers. Line numbers and GOTO
    weren't really much of a problem when you only had 4K RAM. It was
    harder to get in trouble. ;-) Later on QBasic introduced structured
    programming to BASIC coders and there was no looking back.

    A long, long time ago I wrote a preprocessor for Microsoft BASIC which
    allowed me to avoid using line numbers. This was just an inkling
    towards writing a full blown BASIC compiler (in Smalltalk).

    -Carl Gundel
    http://www.runbasic.com
     
    libbasic, Jan 6, 2009
    #18
  19. richard

    libbasic Guest

    On Jan 5, 5:22 pm, Ben C <> wrote:
    > One question I have: does Liberty BASIC have builtin resizeable lists
    > and dictionaries, that can be nested inside each other?
    >
    > e.g. in Python
    >
    >     s = {"cat" : ["foo, "bar", [0, 7]], "dog" : 2, "mouse" : {"k" : (1, 2)}}
    >
    > So s["cat"][2][1] has the value 7 and so on. But you can change and
    > extend everything at any time.
    >
    > Or do you still have to do things like:
    >
    > DIM A(100)
    > to create an array, which is then exactly 100 elements long for all
    > time?


    Liberty BASIC still uses DIM as you say but I am eager to do something
    about that. Evolving languages can be tricky though because you don't
    necessarily want to just graft syntax on from other languages because
    then you end up with a Frankenstein BASIC.

    I'm certainly open to suggestions.

    > Because I think it's this kind of thing that's responsible for the most
    > significant "productivity" differences between most languages these
    > days.


    Have you ever programmed in Smalltalk? Most of the language is
    written in itself. It's amazingly clean.

    > > I think that one really interesting cultural aspect of BASIC is that
    > > there are literally hundreds of implementations of it.  I think it's
    > > great that so many creative people are so involved in the BASIC
    > > community.  The evolution of the language isn't decided by committee.
    > > Look at the direction that Microsoft has applied to VB, or consider
    > > where Sun has taken Java.  :-/

    >
    > Java isn't an implementation of BASIC!


    Of course, but I was trying to make the point about what happens when
    one authority controls everything about a language's evolution. Sun
    has not made good decisions. Only Sun is allowed to make a language
    and call it Java. Microsoft wanted to improve Java but they weren't
    allowed to so they call their version C#. No comment on whether it is
    an improvement.

    -Carl Gundel
    http://www.runbasic.com
     
    libbasic, Jan 6, 2009
    #19
  20. richard

    libbasic Guest

    On Jan 6, 5:53 am, Ben C <> wrote:
    > On 2009-01-06, libbasic <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >On Jan 5, 5:22 pm, Ben C <> wrote:
    > > Liberty BASIC still uses DIM as you say but I am eager to do something
    > > about that. Evolving languages can be tricky though because you don't
    > > necessarily want to just graft syntax on from other languages because
    > > then you end up with a Frankenstein BASIC.

    >
    > Yes you want to keep the syntax in the general style of BASIC. Syntax is
    > not really important, and the main thing is to keep it easy to learn and
    > intuitive.


    I've always added things reluctantly because I don't want it to grow
    out of control. Run BASIC has some very simple OO ideas in it. BASIC
    with objects is a little bit like oil and water so what I added needed
    to be very lightweight. I think it works pretty well but I bet it
    could be done better.

    > > I'm certainly open to suggestions.

    >
    > I suppose the simplest would be DIM A(auto), which makes A like an
    > ECMAScript array: i.e. you can index it with numbers, and just use
    > whatever numbers you like, or with strings or any other hashable thing.
    >
    > DIM A(auto);
    > A[0] = 10;
    > A[1] = 20;
    > A[100] = "foo";
    > A["cat"] = "bar";
    >
    > that kind of thing. I'm not sure how "typed" your BASIC is-- in most
    > versions I used an array was either of numbers or of strings. But you
    > probably want arrays-of-anything, perhaps as well as the single-type
    > ones.


    The hashset idea is definitely tops on my list, so what you're
    describing would fit.

    > Then you'd need a couple of new kinds of for loop to pick out all the
    > named or numbered members etc.


    Yeah, or something.

    > Alternatively, if you add Objects to the language (you may already have
    > done this), then people can just use Objects as dictionaries. All you
    > really need then is an "object literal" syntax or initializer--
    > {key:value, ...} like Perl/Python/ECMAScript all have.
    >
    > Or maybe this is all just making it too complicated :)


    It gets there pretty quickly, right? ;-)

    > >> Because I think it's this kind of thing that's responsible for the most
    > >> significant "productivity" differences between most languages these
    > >> days.

    >
    > > Have you ever programmed in Smalltalk?  Most of the language is
    > > written in itself.  It's amazingly clean.

    >
    > No, but I have read a couple of papers about Smalltalk and it does look
    > interesting.


    Check out the papers at vpri.org and especially read their proposal to
    the National Science Foundation. These are the people who invented
    Smalltalk and they're still trying to invent the future.

    -Carl Gundel
    http://www.runbasic.com
     
    libbasic, Jan 6, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mark Kamoski
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    7,182
  2. Mitchua
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    7,159
    Ice Demon
    Jul 15, 2003
  3. Laura
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    570
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    Jun 5, 2004
  4. Matthew Louden
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    7,112
    Scott M.
    Oct 11, 2003
  5. Adam Akhtar
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    596
    Florian Gilcher
    Aug 16, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page