5 ms·

It was also created 16 years before the first version of Python, 36 years before Python2. It was written in time with completely different paradigms and the tw

It was also created 16 years before the first version of Python, 36 years before Python2. It was written in time with completely different paradigms and the two languages weren't even built with the same design considerations in mind. Obviously, newer languages are going to tend to be easier to work with for beginners, that should be a given. We've made massive improvements in the field in the last few decades.

quietbritishjim 4y ago
> Obviously, newer languages are going to tend to be easier to work with for beginners, that should be a given. The whole point of this comment chain is to discuss whether BASIC was easy to use so it's clearly not a given.
- mynameisvlad 4y ago
  How does BASIC being easy to use or not have anything to do with newer languages being easier to use? Newer languages have the benefit of hindsight and rapidly improved technology. Better graphics, more power, fewer of the heavy limitations that came with early technology. Between the time that BASIC and Python first came out, we went from System/360 mainframes to Windows 3.0 on our home desktops. Obviously newer languages are going to be able to take advantage of this increased power and wider abilities of computers. It should be plainly obvious to anyone who takes more than a second to think about it.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > How does BASIC being easy to use or not have anything to do with newer languages being easier to use? Because "easy" is a somewhat relative term. The category will shift over time.
    - mynameisvlad 4y ago
      Did you bother to even remotely read the comment you replied to, which says the same thing? The category shifts over time, sure. But what does that have to do with BASIC being easy or not? They're two separate topics.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        Let me be clearer. The category changes and the changes can often be applied retroactively. "In hindsight, that wasn't actually easy. It was a massive opportunity for highly motivated learners, but the amount of motivation needed was more than what can fairly be called easy." I'll compare to an early bicycle with no pedals. They were a breakthrough at the time, but in hindsight they hadn't reached "easy". And just like making a better bike, plenty of the issues with BASIC could have been fixed on the equipment of its heyday. And it's not just that things improved over time and you need to be new. There are very old bikes that are plenty easy. But it took a while to figure out.
ptx 4y ago
Scheme was created 16 years before Visual Basic and has none of these problems, so I don't see what the age of the language has to do with how difficult it is to understand. (Also, Python and Visual Basic were actually both created in 1991, so they're contemporary.)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mynameisvlad 4y ago
  Basic was created 11 years before Scheme, and VB was itself derived from Basic, so would have had much of the same design decisions and considerations as a result.
  - ptx 4y ago
    The question I was addressing was whether it was "easy to understand". I'm sure there are explanations for why it's such a complicated language, such as e.g. the "call" statement probably being there for compatibility with QBASIC which required it in some corner cases.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

quietbritishjim 4y ago

> Obviously, newer languages are going to tend to be easier to work with for beginners, that should be a given. The whole point of this comment chain is to discuss whether BASIC was easy to use so it's clearly not a given.

mynameisvlad 4y ago
How does BASIC being easy to use or not have anything to do with newer languages being easier to use? Newer languages have the benefit of hindsight and rapidly improved technology. Better graphics, more power, fewer of the heavy limitations that came with early technology. Between the time that BASIC and Python first came out, we went from System/360 mainframes to Windows 3.0 on our home desktops. Obviously newer languages are going to be able to take advantage of this increased power and wider abilities of computers. It should be plainly obvious to anyone who takes more than a second to think about it.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > How does BASIC being easy to use or not have anything to do with newer languages being easier to use? Because "easy" is a somewhat relative term. The category will shift over time.
  - mynameisvlad 4y ago
    Did you bother to even remotely read the comment you replied to, which says the same thing? The category shifts over time, sure. But what does that have to do with BASIC being easy or not? They're two separate topics.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      Let me be clearer. The category changes and the changes can often be applied retroactively. "In hindsight, that wasn't actually easy. It was a massive opportunity for highly motivated learners, but the amount of motivation needed was more than what can fairly be called easy." I'll compare to an early bicycle with no pedals. They were a breakthrough at the time, but in hindsight they hadn't reached "easy". And just like making a better bike, plenty of the issues with BASIC could have been fixed on the equipment of its heyday. And it's not just that things improved over time and you need to be new. There are very old bikes that are plenty easy. But it took a while to figure out.

ptx 4y ago

Scheme was created 16 years before Visual Basic and has none of these problems, so I don't see what the age of the language has to do with how difficult it is to understand. (Also, Python and Visual Basic were actually both created in 1991, so they're contemporary.)

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mynameisvlad 4y ago
Basic was created 11 years before Scheme, and VB was itself derived from Basic, so would have had much of the same design decisions and considerations as a result.
- ptx 4y ago
  The question I was addressing was whether it was "easy to understand". I'm sure there are explanations for why it's such a complicated language, such as e.g. the "call" statement probably being there for compatibility with QBASIC which required it in some corner cases.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]