> providing clear and relatively foolproof syntax Meh. BASIC-like languages are "clear and relatively foolproof", but not because of their syntax. The genuinel

> providing clear and relatively foolproof syntax Meh. BASIC-like languages are "clear and relatively foolproof", but not because of their syntax. The genuinely "clear" elements that they do have, such as the use of numeric labels, turn out to be poorly scalable, and the syntax itself also accretes all sorts of warts as it's extended beyond trivial functionality. Mostly, they are just simple enough that it is feasible to grok and fully internalize the functioning of the system as a whole, even for novices. "Getting graphics onscreen quickly" came with the territory on MS-DOS systems. The basic hardware functionality was standardized and there was no multi-processing to step on your toes, so just set the graphics mode you want, call some pre-made drawing routines, and you're set.