2 ms·

Oh, you shouldn’t really be comparing unreadability of BASIC to even Unix shell scripts. Python is the pinnacle of readability and structure in comparison. Let

Oh, you shouldn’t really be comparing unreadability of BASIC to even Unix shell scripts. Python is the pinnacle of readability and structure in comparison. Let’s see… Numbered lines as labels, GOTO everywhere. You got GOSUB if you were lucky. All state propagated mostly via global variables. Subroutine parameters were present in dialects few and far between. Now, variables. Maximum length of an identifier was what, 1? Or 2? Inconsistent delimiters and syntax in general. Take GW-BASIC and its hot mess of graphical commands. Here you can’t have parentheses, but there you must. Semicolons here, commas there. All the stuff that makes programs readable — consistent syntax, named procedures, reasonably long variable names, named labels if you must — all appeared very late, in QBASIC I think. But the rest of the BASIC world still had to cater to the lowest common denominator if your program was to be even mildly portable.

int_19h 4y ago
For starters, you didn't "get GOSUB if you were lucky". It dates back to the very first version of Dartmouth BASIC. That aside, most of the limitations that you describe are applicable to BASIC as it was in 1970s (and some, like numeric-only labels and single-letter identifiers, are straight from the 60s). For example, GW-BASIC that you mention already had 40 significant characters in identifiers, WHILE loops, and single-expression user-defined functions. I also don't recall anyone writing any serious amount of BASIC code while catering to the lowest common denominator for the sake of portability, simply because the dialects were different enough that it wasn't really feasible. Even on a single platform like DOS, going from e.g. Turbo BASIC to QBASIC required substantial changes.