3 ms·
“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.
by 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 agoAgreed. 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.