4 ms·

I think the fact that the old 8-bit computers booted straight into BASIC and came with amazing manuals (at least Amstrad) that taught you programming was amazin

I think the fact that the old 8-bit computers booted straight into BASIC and came with amazing manuals (at least Amstrad) that taught you programming was amazing and what made me a software engineer in the end. I shared some of this amazement and examples in: https://retrofun.pl/2021/05/18/hobbyarding/ https://retrofun.pl/2021/05/18/hobbyarding/ But with BASIC getting so much hatred since the 70s... I started with the famous Dijkstra quote and did an investigation - was it really that bad? https://retrofun.pl/2023/12/18/was-basic-that-horrible-or-better/ https://retrofun.pl/2023/12/18/was-basic-that-horrible-or-be... It was amazing to see the language origins and how it compares to the alternatives. Today BASIC dialects are really advanced. Even BBC BASIC has structs now!

pjmlp 3y ago
BASIC dialects were already quite advanced in the 1980's, VMS Basic, Turbo Basic, Quick Basic, AMOS, Acorn Basic, for example. Originally BASIC used a JIT compiler, it was due to the hardware limitations of 8 bit systems that it was know as interpreted language for most folks. 16 bit and 32 bit BASIC supported structured programming, AOT compilation and everything one would expect for systems programming.
gsinclair 3y ago
“Bad” depends on purpose. For teaching novices a bit is programming, I think old-school BASIC with line numbers and goto is hard to beat.
- ikari_pl 3y ago
  Agreed. It also turns out that the features Dijkstra seen in BASIC at the time was half of the features you'd have on an Amstrad in the 80s, so it's not even apples to apples. I also did an experiment not to praise BASIC without criticism and tried Advent of Code in BBC BASIC... it makes you focus on the "how" a lot, almost like assembly, while modern higher level languages let you focus on the "what" instead. On the other hand that still makes it good for learning how things really work. Not having a string.split for example makes you iterate over the string instead, and you'll be aware how split works whether you wanted it or not.
bazoom42 3y ago
Dijkstra was a blowhard anyway. He belived students should prove programs correct on paper before they were allowed to type them into the computer. Basic on the other hand allows a fast feedback cycle of experimenting and learning.

pjmlp 3y ago

BASIC dialects were already quite advanced in the 1980's, VMS Basic, Turbo Basic, Quick Basic, AMOS, Acorn Basic, for example. Originally BASIC used a JIT compiler, it was due to the hardware limitations of 8 bit systems that it was know as interpreted language for most folks. 16 bit and 32 bit BASIC supported structured programming, AOT compilation and everything one would expect for systems programming.

gsinclair 3y ago

“Bad” depends on purpose. For teaching novices a bit is programming, I think old-school BASIC with line numbers and goto is hard to beat.

ikari_pl 3y ago
Agreed. It also turns out that the features Dijkstra seen in BASIC at the time was half of the features you'd have on an Amstrad in the 80s, so it's not even apples to apples. I also did an experiment not to praise BASIC without criticism and tried Advent of Code in BBC BASIC... it makes you focus on the "how" a lot, almost like assembly, while modern higher level languages let you focus on the "what" instead. On the other hand that still makes it good for learning how things really work. Not having a string.split for example makes you iterate over the string instead, and you'll be aware how split works whether you wanted it or not.

bazoom42 3y ago

Dijkstra was a blowhard anyway. He belived students should prove programs correct on paper before they were allowed to type them into the computer. Basic on the other hand allows a fast feedback cycle of experimenting and learning.