5 ms·

I'd like to be positive about this especially considering the thought behind it, but...this is bad. I read the tutorial PDF hoping not to find BASIC-style unstr

by bam365 11y ago

I'd like to be positive about this especially considering the thought behind it, but...this is bad. I read the tutorial PDF hoping not to find BASIC-style unstructured programming. I was disappointed. QBASIC was the first language that I learned as a kid, and I regret it to this day. Learning to solve all my programming problems using GOTO in such a formative time set me back months when I finally moved to structured programming languages. In addition to that, the syntax of this language is so inexplicably heavyweight that I feel like "SmallBasic" is an intentionally ironic name. I'm assuming that this article is apropos of the article posted on HN earlier today about how Python is the new BASIC, as far as educational languages are concerned. I agree with the sentiment. These days, we can and should do a lot better than BASIC as a first language for kids.

recursive 11y ago
You can only blame yourself for overusing goto in qbasic. It had functions, loops, block ifs, and all the other staples of structured programming.
- JadeNB 11y ago
  > You can only blame yourself for overusing goto in qbasic. It had functions, loops, block ifs, and all the other staples of structured programming. When talking explicitly about children beginning programming, I think "you can only blame yourself" is overly harsh. I would certainly say this of a seasoned developer; but a child just starting will—and, I think, should!—do whatever the language allows him or her to do, and it is too much to expect such a child to see, before the bad habit is ingrained, the price that he or she is paying for the apparently wonderful freedom of navigation that GOTO affords. An introductory language should, I think, be very opinionated in matters of underlying structure; just having good options is not enough, if they are not forced (or at least strongly impressed) on the novice who doesn't yet know to use them.
pmelendez 11y ago
>"QBASIC was the first language that I learned as a kid, and I regret it to this day" GWBasic was my first programming language and I don't regret it at all. It enabled 9-years old me to start messing around with programming without too much hassle and honestly using (or abusing) goto then didn't interferred when I have to learn Scheme(my second language) at the university. For a young kind (<10 years old), sequential unstructure programming is more natural and easier to pickup. I remember having struggled with For statements when I was using basic and I really appreciate them way later in life. Also, why so much hate to goto? there are not many alternatives if you are programming in assembly anyway.
Narishma 11y ago
You can do structured programming in QBasic just fine. It didn't require line numbers and had all the necessary tools like functions and procedures, for and while loops, blocks, user-defined types, etc...
omgtehlion 11y ago
Get off my lawn kids! My first programming language was machine code of kp1816BE35 (I still remember the part name), a soviet clone of some 8-bit processor. It had to be flashed, not flashed, _burned_ into a UV-erasable ROM. THAT thing had only GOTOs. Yet I don't see a problem with it.

by bam365 11y ago

recursive 11y ago

You can only blame yourself for overusing goto in qbasic. It had functions, loops, block ifs, and all the other staples of structured programming.

JadeNB 11y ago
> You can only blame yourself for overusing goto in qbasic. It had functions, loops, block ifs, and all the other staples of structured programming. When talking explicitly about children beginning programming, I think "you can only blame yourself" is overly harsh. I would certainly say this of a seasoned developer; but a child just starting will—and, I think, should!—do whatever the language allows him or her to do, and it is too much to expect such a child to see, before the bad habit is ingrained, the price that he or she is paying for the apparently wonderful freedom of navigation that GOTO affords. An introductory language should, I think, be very opinionated in matters of underlying structure; just having good options is not enough, if they are not forced (or at least strongly impressed) on the novice who doesn't yet know to use them.

pmelendez 11y ago

>"QBASIC was the first language that I learned as a kid, and I regret it to this day" GWBasic was my first programming language and I don't regret it at all. It enabled 9-years old me to start messing around with programming without too much hassle and honestly using (or abusing) goto then didn't interferred when I have to learn Scheme(my second language) at the university. For a young kind (<10 years old), sequential unstructure programming is more natural and easier to pickup. I remember having struggled with For statements when I was using basic and I really appreciate them way later in life. Also, why so much hate to goto? there are not many alternatives if you are programming in assembly anyway.

Narishma 11y ago

You can do structured programming in QBasic just fine. It didn't require line numbers and had all the necessary tools like functions and procedures, for and while loops, blocks, user-defined types, etc...

omgtehlion 11y ago

Get off my lawn kids! My first programming language was machine code of kp1816BE35 (I still remember the part name), a soviet clone of some 8-bit processor. It had to be flashed, not flashed, _burned_ into a UV-erasable ROM. THAT thing had only GOTOs. Yet I don't see a problem with it.