Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #532266 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-11 19:50 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-11-25 22:57 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 180 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-11 19:50 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 04:22 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-12 10:05 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 19:10 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-13 05:52 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-13 19:13 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-13 19:38 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-14 01:27 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-14 15:55 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-14 21:28 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-15 10:30 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-15 20:23 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-16 05:42 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-16 19:29 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-17 05:08 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-17 20:22 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 14:16 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-13 16:11 -0600
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 08:43 -0600
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-12 11:06 -0600
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 19:01 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-14 15:52 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-15 01:03 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-18 02:09 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-18 19:39 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-19 00:27 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-19 05:40 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-19 07:50 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-19 18:37 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 11:47 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. "Sam Gordon" <invalid@examplll.com> - 2015-11-19 11:58 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 12:21 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-19 23:35 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-20 07:22 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-20 09:20 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-20 17:47 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-20 15:31 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-20 21:56 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-21 08:18 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 19:02 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-22 09:17 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 19:07 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-23 08:11 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 18:24 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-24 21:37 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 19:08 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 23:33 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-25 13:44 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 06:25 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-26 15:19 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 08:51 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-27 14:06 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 20:10 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-15 10:00 -0600
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 10:21 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-15 14:18 -0600
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 20:08 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-25 19:12 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-26 15:19 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-24 22:35 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-25 06:08 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-21 14:37 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 18:49 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-22 14:50 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 19:17 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-23 14:13 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 18:32 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-24 13:20 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-24 19:38 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-25 13:43 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-25 19:25 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-22 11:03 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 19:19 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 11:46 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 20:27 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 12:58 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 21:04 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-22 19:05 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 00:59 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 18:46 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 06:07 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 04:00 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 18:37 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 20:17 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-19 16:07 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-20 00:37 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-22 16:28 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 01:10 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-25 14:13 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-25 23:37 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-29 16:17 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-30 01:22 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-12-03 15:12 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-04 00:15 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-03 23:34 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-04 05:14 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-12-05 17:01 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-06 02:37 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-06 00:55 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-06 15:07 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-06 10:15 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-06 18:51 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-07 03:23 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-07 13:46 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-07 19:20 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-12-07 15:53 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-06 18:44 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-14 15:12 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-14 16:56 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-14 13:13 -0600
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 19:32 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-14 20:47 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 21:36 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-14 22:33 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 00:09 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-14 21:57 -0600
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 05:00 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jürgen Großenbuch <jurgengb@adenauer.org> - 2015-12-15 15:02 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 19:13 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-15 13:06 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 19:31 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-14 22:11 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 03:44 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-14 23:04 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 05:01 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-15 06:36 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-12-12 02:43 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-12 19:18 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 00:48 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 06:08 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 03:21 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 19:13 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 14:37 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 20:36 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 15:48 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 21:06 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 19:58 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 01:32 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 20:54 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 03:15 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 19:55 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 01:52 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 22:38 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 06:07 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-14 22:38 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 05:04 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-15 06:50 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-15 13:06 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-15 08:53 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 19:52 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 19:48 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-15 22:12 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-16 03:44 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-13 20:15 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 20:20 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-13 20:37 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 21:06 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-12-15 02:24 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 20:03 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-26 15:18 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-27 01:32 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-27 14:06 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-11-12 15:17 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 23:34 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-13 05:57 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-13 19:23 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-13 19:53 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. emptypost@hotmail.com - 2015-11-19 19:26 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. emptypost@hotmail.com - 2015-11-19 19:40 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. emptypost@hotmail.com - 2015-11-20 15:57 -0800
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 00:30 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-20 21:53 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 07:15 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-21 13:46 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 19:57 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-21 15:50 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 22:44 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-21 22:30 -0500
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 05:14 +0000
Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. emptypost@hotmail.com - 2015-11-25 22:57 -0800
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 06:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <42naic-q1l.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #534691 |
Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 4:16:06 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 3:31:05 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 2:31:06 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> >> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:49:44 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > >> > <trim /BAH /bah /BAH sheeple talk, Hi /BAH!> >> > >> >> >> > So it isn't puerile, childish, or bigoted if spoken by a priest from >> >> >> > an IT department? >> >> >> >> >> >> I said I could understand it, period. >> >> >> >> >> >> Your use of the phrase 'priest from an IT department' goes a long way >> >> >> in showing what a bigot you are. >> >> > >> >> > Wake up Jim, that's a perfect phrase, accurate in any tone. >> >> >> >> It is sour grapes and nothing more. >> > >> > No it's not, when was the last time you interviewed for an IT job? >> >> About 20 years ago just before I started my own IT company when I tired >> of head hunters taking a big cut. > > You did the wise step Jim. I wish I had. I am doing it now. > >> Unless you mean when was the last time I interviewed someone. > > Fine, whom did you end up hiring? Got linkedin links for them? I don't do linkedin. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 04:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <16187b1d-a8b8-43ce-8ed4-3e2a535e94c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #534719 |
On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 1:31:07 AM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 4:16:06 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 3:31:05 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> >> Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 2:31:06 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> >> >> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:49:44 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > <trim /BAH /bah /BAH sheeple talk, Hi /BAH!>
> >> >
> >> >> >> > So it isn't puerile, childish, or bigoted if spoken by a priest from
> >> >> >> > an IT department?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I said I could understand it, period.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Your use of the phrase 'priest from an IT department' goes a long way
> >> >> >> in showing what a bigot you are.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Wake up Jim, that's a perfect phrase, accurate in any tone.
> >> >>
> >> >> It is sour grapes and nothing more.
> >> >
> >> > No it's not, when was the last time you interviewed for an IT job?
> >>
> >> About 20 years ago just before I started my own IT company when I tired
> >> of head hunters taking a big cut.
> >
> > You did the wise step Jim. I wish I had. I am doing it now.
> >
> >> Unless you mean when was the last time I interviewed someone.
> >
> > Fine, whom did you end up hiring? Got linkedin links for them?
>
> I don't do linkedin.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
First the sad facts of modern reality...
If you're not on linkedin, then you don't exist ...S(y)ndrome.
If you're not on facebook, then you don't exist ...S(y)ndrome.
If you're not on twitter, then you don't exist ...S(y)ndrome.
If you are on Usenet, then you don't exist ...S(y)ndrome.
Again, you Jim made the wise decision. LinkedIn informs me that I have
close to three million connections. For joy, I ought jump! Which is
really funny given that I know only around a hundred people on that
site. Most of them I no longer work with or for. TMI? Well, never be
yourself on the WWW or in real life for ...youKnow. Six degrees of
Climate Change, I mean Freedom. He he...
Tomorrow beckons. BREAKING UP NEWS@{11, 12, 13, ..., 24}.
-- Mahipal "IPMM... Marketing Branding 101! All matters that."
6*6*6*6*6*6 = 46656 -> 6^6 = ... -> 666 = Six Degrees Of Freedom
Mark of the Linguistic Beast 6! = 720
6^6^6^6^6^6 = 46656^6^6^6^6 = (1.03144247984905E28)^6^6^6 = Not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 18:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m03cic-rmp.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #534753 |
Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 1:31:07 AM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 4:16:06 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 3:31:05 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> >> Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 2:31:06 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> >> >> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:49:44 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> > >> >> > <trim /BAH /bah /BAH sheeple talk, Hi /BAH!> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > So it isn't puerile, childish, or bigoted if spoken by a priest from >> >> >> >> > an IT department? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I said I could understand it, period. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Your use of the phrase 'priest from an IT department' goes a long way >> >> >> >> in showing what a bigot you are. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Wake up Jim, that's a perfect phrase, accurate in any tone. >> >> >> >> >> >> It is sour grapes and nothing more. >> >> > >> >> > No it's not, when was the last time you interviewed for an IT job? >> >> >> >> About 20 years ago just before I started my own IT company when I tired >> >> of head hunters taking a big cut. >> > >> > You did the wise step Jim. I wish I had. I am doing it now. >> > >> >> Unless you mean when was the last time I interviewed someone. >> > >> > Fine, whom did you end up hiring? Got linkedin links for them? >> >> I don't do linkedin. >> >> -- >> Jim Pennino > > First the sad facts of modern reality... > If you're not on linkedin, then you don't exist ...S(y)ndrome. > If you're not on facebook, then you don't exist ...S(y)ndrome. > If you're not on twitter, then you don't exist ...S(y)ndrome. > If you are on Usenet, then you don't exist ...S(y)ndrome. As I am on a first name basis with most all the players in my little niche of the world, things like linded in are irrelevant to me. > Again, you Jim made the wise decision. LinkedIn informs me that I have > close to three million connections. For joy, I ought jump! Which is > really funny given that I know only around a hundred people on that > site. Most of them I no longer work with or for. TMI? Well, never be > yourself on the WWW or in real life for ...youKnow. Six degrees of > Climate Change, I mean Freedom. He he... I was on linked in for a short time many years ago and started accumulating connections from people I didn't know who had no relation to what I do, so I dumped it. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 20:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e1db8a0e-f05f-4930-a87e-f2eea1bf06a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #534853 |
On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 1:46:05 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 1:31:07 AM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: <trim> > >> I don't do linkedin. > >> > >> -- > >> Jim Pennino > > > > First the sad facts of modern reality... > > If you're not on linkedin, then you don't exist ...S(y)ndrome. > > If you're not on facebook, then you don't exist ...S(y)ndrome. > > If you're not on twitter, then you don't exist ...S(y)ndrome. > > If you are on Usenet, then you don't exist ...S(y)ndrome. > > As I am on a first name basis with most all the players in my little > niche of the world, things like linded in are irrelevant to me. > > > Again, you Jim made the wise decision. LinkedIn informs me that I have > > close to three million connections. For joy, I ought jump! Which is > > really funny given that I know only around a hundred people on that > > site. Most of them I no longer work with or for. TMI? Well, never be > > yourself on the WWW or in real life for ...youKnow. Six degrees of > > Climate Change, I mean Freedom. He he... > > I was on linked in for a short time many years ago and started > accumulating connections from people I didn't know who had no > relation to what I do, so I dumped it. I took the exact opposite route, anybody who wanted to connect with me, I just defaulted to yes Yes YES. Same outcome as yours! I do not at all doubt your expertise with Science/Physics or the minor forgettable Social Media Nonsense Jim. Always insightful reading you Jim, take care, and all the best. Thank you for respectfully, gentlemanly, chatting with me. Cheers! > -- > Jim Pennino -- Mahipal Virdy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-19 16:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2f283834-d410-4501-a436-e3b4c90b46c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #533978 |
ji.@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>> On 11/11/15 9:50 PM, Max Keon wrote: >>>>>> I was given verbal permission in a phone conversation with a Microsoft >>>>>> representative. He said the software was obsolete and of no further use >>>>> to Microsoft. I couldn't expect more than a verbal OK in this case. >>>>> >>>>> What part of "the software is obsolete" did you miss? >>>> >>>> The "obsolete" part needs to be addressed, and that can only be >>>> done by attracting the attention of the Microsoft hierarchy. >>>> >>>>> Anybody that wants to download can do so here: >>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickbasic/ >>>> >>>> What was wrong with my link? >>>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html >>>> >>>>> But, as the jimp points out 99% have no interest. >>>>> >>>>> Modern computers come with the tools to compile all manner of code >>>>> such as FORTRAN, C, C+, Objective C, Swift, etc. >>>> >>>> Quick Basic was included as part of the Windows package in >>>> Windows 95 and 98. Everyone had direct access to a copy. Programs >>>> could be written and freely shared across the internet. But at >>>> the time it's full potential as a simple communication tool was >>> >>> Quick BASIC is incapable of communicating with anything other than >>> a pipe through the command line. >>> >>>> not realized. None of your software listed above comes **anywhere >>>> near** comparing with Qbasic. They are not included in any >>>> operating system software. >>> >>> All are optional on most OS's, even Microsoft. >> >> So you think I should post multiple programs to cover every >> possible software option? That would be absolutely ridiculous. > > I never said any such thing. > > What I did say is there are LOTS of languages available for free. > >>>> GM/r^2^(2.02) causes a rapid perihelion advance in the eccentric >>> >>> Today done with a $10.00 calculator. >> >> The same calculator could handle this as well; (t^2*f/2)^2 . >> 't' is the time over a half orbit cycle. f is a proposed change >> in the gravity force that's generated by the radial velocity >> between objects in eccentric orbits. i.e. Sun-Mercury, Sun-Pluto. >> The only problem is in determining a value for 'f'. Due to the >> number of variables involved a simple formula doesn't seem >> possible. The force 'f' is time dependent and needs to be >> calculated in set time segments. A program can be set up to do >> this. But which programming language should I choose for this >> program? **The one that's freely available on everyone's computer >> of course.** > > Take your pick. Consider this: The programming language 'a' is included in every operating system software for every computer on earth, while language 'b' is included in 50% of the computers and language 'c' is included in the remaining 50%. It should be blatantly obvious that I could only gain the audience coverage of 'a' using only the languages 'b' and 'c' if I post two programs, one written for each. I'm going to need to post at least five programs, apparently. FORTRAN, C, C+, Objective C, Swift, etc. Or I could just use 'a' (Quick Basic). ----- Max Keon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-20 00:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cj62ic-29l.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #534114 |
Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > Consider this: The programming language 'a' is included in every > operating system software for every computer on earth, while > language 'b' is included in 50% of the computers and language 'c' > is included in the remaining 50%. Consider this: all those languages are a free download. > It should be blatantly obvious that I could only gain the > audience coverage of 'a' using only the languages 'b' and 'c' if > I post two programs, one written for each. Nonsense. The "audience coverage" will depend on how many people have an interest in what the program does. > I'm going to need to post at least five programs, apparently. > FORTRAN, C, C+, Objective C, Swift, etc. Yet more nonsense. > Or I could just use 'a' (Quick Basic). Which can't do much of anything in the real world. The world has moved past little BASIC programs that calculate the hypotenuse of a triangle. How about a program that contols the movement of a pan/tilt camera that uses the ONVIF protocol (SOAP over HTTP) and provides video with RTSP? How about a program that monitors the video looking for movement and stores a video segment to disk when movement is detected? Nobody has such a thing? I'm looking at one, it cost $62.38. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 16:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <32593f65-449f-48f0-8ded-c12cbf2c0a28@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #534120 |
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> Consider this: The programming language 'a' is included in every >> operating system software for every computer on earth, while >> language 'b' is included in 50% of the computers and language 'c' >> is included in the remaining 50%. > > Consider this: all those languages are a free download. But they are not actually free are they! >> It should be blatantly obvious that I could only gain the >> audience coverage of 'a' using only the languages 'b' and 'c' if >> I post two programs, one written for each. > > Nonsense. > > The "audience coverage" will depend on how many people have an interest > in what the program does. Even if Qbasic wasn't included in the operating system package, but was still supported by Microsoft, anyone with an interest in what a program does could very easily download the Qbasic software and have it up and running in only a few minutes. Try doing that with any of the programs in this list of yours. >> I'm going to need to post at least five programs, apparently. >> FORTRAN, C, C+, Objective C, Swift, etc. > > Yet more nonsense. > >> Or I could just use 'a' (Quick Basic). > > Which can't do much of anything in the real world. > > The world has moved past little BASIC programs that calculate the > hypotenuse of a triangle. In your world that may be the case. But in the real world, there are those who would like to share their "little BASIC programs" with others. This is one such program. Its purpose is to highlight the fact that what is observed in nature does not comply with logical reason. It's also designed to demonstrate that the Pythagoras equation a^2+b^2 = c^2 isn't limited to simply calculating the hypotenuse of a triangle or determining speed of light and travel time changes perpendicular the line of relative motion. It applies globally. '---The program--- 'This program simulates the motion of a device which consists of a light 'source which emits two wavefronts simultaneously in opposite directions 'that travel at a constant rate relative to the propagation base for 'light which is the screen in this case, to be reflected off mirrors and 'returned to the source. ON TIMER(1) GOSUB tfix 'The next eight lines set the program TIMER ON 'run speed to suit your computer. WHILE stp < 10 pp = pp + 1 WEND tfix: ti = (pp / 10) TIMER OFF SCREEN 12 vx = 300 v = .5 tv: CLS LOCATE 13, 24: PRINT "Pixel count for v=0 is 300" COLOR 11: LOCATE 18, 32: PRINT "Mirrors" COLOR 12: LOCATE 16, 30: PRINT "light paths" COLOR 14: LOCATE 17, 31: PRINT "wavefronts" COLOR 10: LOCATE 15, 30: PRINT "light source" tm: COLOR 14 tx: aa = 160: bb = 154: cc = 180: dd = 154: ee = 4: ff = 154 a = 170: b = 170: c = 20: d = 320: e = 20: f = 320 g = 165: h = 175: s = 0: ss = 0 'Sets the start point of light source and mirror assembly. LOCATE 14, 32: PRINT "v ="; v; "c" COLOR 7 LOCATE 7, 22: PRINT "Wave fronts travel at a constant" LOCATE 8, 26: PRINT "rate across the screen." av: COLOR 7 LOCATE 12, 27: PRINT vw; "(pixel count)" LINE (e, 154)-(f, 154), 12 'light paths LINE (g, 149)-(h, 159), 10, B 'light source LINE (c, 144)-(c, 164), 11 'left mirror LINE (d, 144)-(d, 164), 11 'right mirror LINE (a, 144)-(a, 164), 14 'left wave front LINE (b, 144)-(b, 164), 14 'right wave front FOR t = 1 TO ti / 4: NEXT t 'Graphics "on" timer. IF a = b AND vw > 0 THEN GOSUB ax vw = vw + 1 IF vw > 700 THEN LOCATE 10, 28: COLOR 11: PRINT "TO INFINITY--->": END s$ = INKEY$: IF s$ = CHR$(27) THEN END COLOR 0 LINE (e, 154)-(f, 154) LINE (g, 149)-(h, 159), , B LINE (c, 144)-(c, 164) LINE (d, 144)-(d, 164) LINE (a, 144)-(a, 164) LINE (b, 144)-(b, 164) IF a = c OR a < c THEN s = 1 IF a = d OR a > d THEN s = 0 IF b = d OR b > d THEN ss = 1 IF b = c OR b < c THEN ss = 0 IF s = 0 THEN a = a - 1 IF s = 1 THEN a = a + 1 IF ss = 0 THEN b = b + 1 IF ss = 1 THEN b = b - 1 c = c + v: d = d + v: e = e + v f = f + v: g = g + v: h = h + v GOTO av ax: COLOR 7 LOCATE 15, 18: PRINT "t'= t *"; vx; "/"; vw; "="; vx / vw; " (t=1)" cy = 1 LOCATE 16, 18 PRINT "t'= t * sqr(1-v^2/c^2) ="; 1*SQR(1-v^2/cy^2); "is observed" LOCATE 17, 18: PRINT "Or per Pythagoras a^2+b^2 = c^2 (where c=1)" LOCATE 18, 18: PRINT "t' = SQR(c^2-v^2) ="; SQR(cy^2-v^2); "sec'/sec" vw = 0: COLOR 3 LOCATE 20, 14: PRINT "Enter speed from 0 to 1 (1 = light speed)" LOCATE 21, 14: INPUT ">1 exits the program"; v IF v > 1 THEN END GOTO tv '----end--- Apart from that, a 10 year old kid would perhaps like to share math based programs with friends or class mates. Qbasic could be the catalyst that kick starts a career in programming. Who knows where that could lead. > How about a program that contols the movement of a pan/tilt camera > that uses the ONVIF protocol (SOAP over HTTP) and provides video with > RTSP? > > How about a program that monitors the video looking for movement and > stores a video segment to disk when movement is detected? > > Nobody has such a thing? A Pic controller could probably handle that. ----- Max Keon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 01:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ul5aic-a4j.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #534652 |
Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>> Consider this: The programming language 'a' is included in every >>> operating system software for every computer on earth, while >>> language 'b' is included in 50% of the computers and language 'c' >>> is included in the remaining 50%. >> >> Consider this: all those languages are a free download. > > But they are not actually free are they! > >>> It should be blatantly obvious that I could only gain the >>> audience coverage of 'a' using only the languages 'b' and 'c' if >>> I post two programs, one written for each. >> >> Nonsense. >> >> The "audience coverage" will depend on how many people have an interest >> in what the program does. > > Even if Qbasic wasn't included in the operating system package, > but was still supported by Microsoft, anyone with an interest in > what a program does could very easily download the Qbasic > software and have it up and running in only a few minutes. Try > doing that with any of the programs in this list of yours. I see you don't actually know much about programming. Qbasic isn't supported by anyone and it is obvious that few people have an interest in BASIC of any kind given that hardly anyhone downloads the available free version. >>> I'm going to need to post at least five programs, apparently. >>> FORTRAN, C, C+, Objective C, Swift, etc. >> >> Yet more nonsense. >> >>> Or I could just use 'a' (Quick Basic). >> >> Which can't do much of anything in the real world. >> >> The world has moved past little BASIC programs that calculate the >> hypotenuse of a triangle. > > In your world that may be the case. But in the real world, > there are those who would like to share their "little BASIC > programs" with others. Then your small group of hobbyists are free to download the free version of BASIC that Microsoft does offer. The rest of the world obviously doesn't care or there would be a demand and if Microsoft didn't address the demand, someone else would. But nobody is supporting a BASIC for windows anymore other than Microsoft. > This is one such program. Its purpose is to highlight the fact <snip long assed BASIC program If it is so great, port it to the current version of BASIC that Microsoft supports and supplies for free and quit whinning. > Apart from that, a 10 year old kid would perhaps like to share > math based programs with friends or class mates. Qbasic could be > the catalyst that kick starts a career in programming. Who knows > where that could lead. I do, nowhere these days. The kids these days doing any programming in BASIC are doing it in the current version of BASIC that Microsoft supports and supplies for free. Kids would quickly loose any interest in command line displays. >> How about a program that contols the movement of a pan/tilt camera >> that uses the ONVIF protocol (SOAP over HTTP) and provides video with >> RTSP? >> >> How about a program that monitors the video looking for movement and >> stores a video segment to disk when movement is detected? >> >> Nobody has such a thing? > > A Pic controller could probably handle that. I see you haven't a clue what SOAP over HTTP and RTSP are. Not surprising. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-25 14:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <292bac77-766b-4d17-b87f-237bc2544943@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #534659 |
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>> Consider this: The programming language 'a' is included in every >>>> operating system software for every computer on earth, while >>>> language 'b' is included in 50% of the computers and language 'c' >>>> is included in the remaining 50%. >>> >>> Consider this: all those languages are a free download. >> >> But they are not actually free are they! >> >>>> It should be blatantly obvious that I could only gain the >>>> audience coverage of 'a' using only the languages 'b' and 'c' if >>>> I post two programs, one written for each. >>> >>> Nonsense. >>> >>> The "audience coverage" will depend on how many people have an interest >>> in what the program does. >> >> Even if Qbasic wasn't included in the operating system package, >> but was still supported by Microsoft, anyone with an interest in >> what a program does could very easily download the Qbasic >> software and have it up and running in only a few minutes. Try >> doing that with any of the programs in this list of yours. > > I see you don't actually know much about programming. > > Qbasic isn't supported by anyone and it is obvious that few people > have an interest in BASIC of any kind given that hardly anyhone > downloads the available free version. > >>>> I'm going to need to post at least five programs, apparently. >>>> FORTRAN, C, C+, Objective C, Swift, etc. >>> >>> Yet more nonsense. >>> >>>> Or I could just use 'a' (Quick Basic). >>> >>> Which can't do much of anything in the real world. >>> >>> The world has moved past little BASIC programs that calculate the >>> hypotenuse of a triangle. >> >> In your world that may be the case. But in the real world, >> there are those who would like to share their "little BASIC >> programs" with others. > > Then your small group of hobbyists are free to download the free > version of BASIC that Microsoft does offer. > > The rest of the world obviously doesn't care or there would be a > demand and if Microsoft didn't address the demand, someone else > would. But nobody is supporting a BASIC for windows anymore other > than Microsoft. > >> This is one such program. Its purpose is to highlight the fact > ><snip long assed BASIC program > > If it is so great, port it to the current version of BASIC that > Microsoft supports and supplies for free and quit whinning. > >> Apart from that, a 10 year old kid would perhaps like to share >> math based programs with friends or class mates. Qbasic could be >> the catalyst that kick starts a career in programming. Who knows >> where that could lead. > > I do, nowhere these days. > > The kids these days doing any programming in BASIC are doing it in > the current version of BASIC that Microsoft supports and supplies for > free. > > Kids would quickly loose any interest in command line displays. I didn't think you would have the audacity to compare that "version of BASIC that Microsoft supports and supplies for free", with Qbasic. That's Visual Basic taken to its current state of evolution, and nobody on this planet could download it and understand it without having some prior knowledge of how the programming system works. All it is a list of gigantic subroutines that can be called upon to perform a variety of tasks. But labeling these things as subroutines that can be called upon through command line instruction is taboo. They have ordinate properties that separate them from the old, and apparently useless command line displays. But regardless of how a programming system chooses to describe these things, in the end, at the processor level it all comes down to simple bit manipulation, nothing else. We all end up back in the same place. How can kids become interested in programming at the basic level when the required software has for many years been promoted by their peers as being completely useless for programming in the modern world. And one would have to be some kind of loser to use it. It should always be available and promoted as a stepping stone to higher level languages. Why has that experience been taken away from the kids, and anyone else who would like to understand the basics of computer programming? My first computer was a Commodore Vic20, and I spent many enjoyable hours a day writing programs that would fit into its RAM base of only a few thousand bytes. I increased its capacity to around 36000 bytes at a cost of $120. My interest then shifted to programming at the processor level. But my only access to the 6520 microprocessor was via the operating system software stored in ROM. The operating system was doing all of the bit manipulation as instructed by me via a few access registers. I was still one step away from directly accessing the processor. And that would always be the case unless I designed the operating system software as well. It quickly became clear to me that I would always be a puppet of the O/S programmers. These folk would become supreme beings who would share their brilliance with the world at a cost, and that is completely understandable. The same applies for programming language developers. Because nobody can use such software unless the exact parameters for its operation are understood, anyone proficient in the use of the software has been well instructed accordingly. It's really no big deal. They are still programmer puppets. ----- Max Keon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-25 23:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4bthic-5co.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #535478 |
Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: <snip> >> Kids would quickly loose any interest in command line displays. > > I didn't think you would have the audacity to compare that > "version of BASIC that Microsoft supports and supplies for free", > with Qbasic. That's Visual Basic taken to its current state of > evolution, and nobody on this planet could download it and > understand it without having some prior knowledge of how the > programming system works. All it is a list of gigantic > subroutines that can be called upon to perform a variety of > tasks. But labeling these things as subroutines that can be > called upon through command line instruction is taboo. They have > ordinate properties that separate them from the old, and > apparently useless command line displays. But regardless of how > a programming system chooses to describe these things, in the > end, at the processor level it all comes down to simple bit > manipulation, nothing else. We all end up back in the same place. Pure drivel. > How can kids become interested in programming at the basic level > when the required software has for many years been promoted by > their peers as being completely useless for programming in the > modern world. And one would have to be some kind of loser to use > it. More drivel. > It should always be available and promoted as a stepping stone > to higher level languages. Why has that experience been taken > away from the kids, and anyone else who would like to understand > the basics of computer programming? Yet more drivel. For elementry instruction, it is trivial to restrict usage of features to just those available in Qbasic. Just because a language has features above and beyond Qbasic does NOT mean you have to use them in an introductory lesson. What horse did you steal those blinders from? > My first computer was a Commodore Vic20, and I spent many > enjoyable hours a day writing programs that would fit into its > RAM base of only a few thousand bytes. I increased its capacity > to around 36000 bytes at a cost of $120. My interest then shifted > to programming at the processor level. But my only access to the > 6520 microprocessor was via the operating system software stored > in ROM. The operating system was doing all of the bit > manipulation as instructed by me via a few access registers. I > was still one step away from directly accessing the processor. > And that would always be the case unless I designed the > operating system software as well. My first computer (that I owned) was a MITS 8080 kit computer. The first computer I programmed on was an IBM 360. Both allowed programming "at the processor level", as has every computer I have ever seen. > It quickly became clear to me that I would always be a puppet of > the O/S programmers. These folk would become supreme beings who > would share their brilliance with the world at a cost, and that > is completely understandable. The same applies for programming > language developers. Because nobody can use such software unless > the exact parameters for its operation are understood, anyone > proficient in the use of the software has been well instructed > accordingly. It's really no big deal. They are still programmer > puppets. Sour grapes, bullshit and whinning. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-29 16:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b054f64f-273d-4ae2-91da-02bfb7b91736@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #535493 |
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > <snip> > >>> Kids would quickly loose any interest in command line displays. >> >> I didn't think you would have the audacity to compare that >> "version of BASIC that Microsoft supports and supplies for free", >> with Qbasic. That's Visual Basic taken to its current state of >> evolution, and nobody on this planet could download it and >> understand it without having some prior knowledge of how the >> programming system works. All it is a list of gigantic >> subroutines that can be called upon to perform a variety of >> tasks. But labeling these things as subroutines that can be >> called upon through command line instruction is taboo. They have >> ordinate properties that separate them from the old, and >> apparently useless command line displays. But regardless of how >> a programming system chooses to describe these things, in the >> end, at the processor level it all comes down to simple bit >> manipulation, nothing else. We all end up back in the same place. > > Pure drivel. > >> How can kids become interested in programming at the basic level >> when the required software has for many years been promoted by >> their peers as being completely useless for programming in the >> modern world. And one would have to be some kind of loser to use >> it. > > More drivel. Your arguments are not exactly complelling, are they. >> It should always be available and promoted as a stepping stone >> to higher level languages. Why has that experience been taken >> away from the kids, and anyone else who would like to understand >> the basics of computer programming? > > Yet more drivel. > > For elementry instruction, it is trivial to restrict usage of > features to just those available in Qbasic. > > Just because a language has features above and beyond Qbasic does > NOT mean you have to use them in an introductory lesson. Complex software isn't going to be donated at zero cost, and it needs to be freely included in every O/S software package. It's also essential that it be relevant for the required level of expertise. Anyone unfamiliar with computer programming isn't going to be capable of deciphering which of a myriad of programming options is relevant for them. **That should be blatantly obvious.** Qbasic can be upgraded to suit modern technology without changing its format. It has a comprehensive help file that's very easy to follow, and the keyword examples can be copy-pasted into the main screen and run. Their function becomes readily apparent when the variables are altered. >> My first computer was a Commodore Vic20, and I spent many >> enjoyable hours a day writing programs that would fit into its >> RAM base of only a few thousand bytes. I increased its capacity >> to around 36000 bytes at a cost of $120. My interest then shifted >> to programming at the processor level. But my only access to the >> 6520 microprocessor was via the operating system software stored >> in ROM. The operating system was doing all of the bit >> manipulation as instructed by me via a few access registers. I >> was still one step away from directly accessing the processor. >> And that would always be the case unless I designed the >> operating system software as well. > > My first computer (that I owned) was a MITS 8080 kit computer. > > The first computer I programmed on was an IBM 360. > > Both allowed programming "at the processor level", as has every > computer I have ever seen. It would be a strange programming system if it didn't reach the processor. But that doesn't mean that the pathway to the processor is clearly defined. The pathway is very clearly defined when using DOS based programming systems like, Debug or Symdeb. The user is given direct access to the processor. But they are not at all user friendly, and are not in the same ballpark as Qbasic as a communication tool. i.e. Using Symdeb: These program steps are required to place the letter "A" on the screen. The screen location is set by the sum of the contents from ES and BX while "A" and its colors are carried in the register AX. Symdeb runs under Dos, Dos Prompt, or Command Prompt in post Windows 98 machines. But it won't run on Windows 7. MOV AX,B800 MOV ES,AX MOV AX,BC41 MOV BX,0982 MOV ES:[BX],AX MOV AH,4C INT 21 Here's a snapshot of the screen after tracing through the program steps. http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/symdeb-x.jpg Whether it be a 16, 32 or 64 bit system, regardless of what programming system is used, or how complicated a subroutine may be (by whatever name), the only way to shift information through the processor is by directly accessing the processor in a similar manner to that shown above. **There is no other way**. In Quick Basic, if the word "INPUT" for example is placed in a command line, a subroutine that is set up in the programming software is automatically accessed, and that will store the info carried in the user input variable (INPUT "whatever"; x) somewhere in RAM. The detail of how it's stored via the processor or how it's retrieved is irrelevant to the Qbasic programmer. The same applies for anything else written into a command line. And the same will apply regardless of programming language, terminology used to describe operands, subroutine size and complexity. In the end the processor will be accessed as I've described. Conclusion: Quick Basic as downloaded from this address http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html is, basic, very user friendly, and nothing else compares with it for its intended purpose. Its only failing is that it won't run on 64 bit systems. ----- Max Keon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 01:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e0lsic-mm1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #536402 |
Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> <snip> >> >>>> Kids would quickly loose any interest in command line displays. >>> >>> I didn't think you would have the audacity to compare that >>> "version of BASIC that Microsoft supports and supplies for free", >>> with Qbasic. That's Visual Basic taken to its current state of >>> evolution, and nobody on this planet could download it and >>> understand it without having some prior knowledge of how the >>> programming system works. All it is a list of gigantic >>> subroutines that can be called upon to perform a variety of >>> tasks. But labeling these things as subroutines that can be >>> called upon through command line instruction is taboo. They have >>> ordinate properties that separate them from the old, and >>> apparently useless command line displays. But regardless of how >>> a programming system chooses to describe these things, in the >>> end, at the processor level it all comes down to simple bit >>> manipulation, nothing else. We all end up back in the same place. >> >> Pure drivel. >> >>> How can kids become interested in programming at the basic level >>> when the required software has for many years been promoted by >>> their peers as being completely useless for programming in the >>> modern world. And one would have to be some kind of loser to use >>> it. >> >> More drivel. > > Your arguments are not exactly complelling, are they. I am not making arguements, I am making comments on your arguements. >>> It should always be available and promoted as a stepping stone >>> to higher level languages. Why has that experience been taken >>> away from the kids, and anyone else who would like to understand >>> the basics of computer programming? >> >> Yet more drivel. >> >> For elementry instruction, it is trivial to restrict usage of >> features to just those available in Qbasic. >> >> Just because a language has features above and beyond Qbasic does >> NOT mean you have to use them in an introductory lesson. > > Complex software isn't going to be donated at zero cost, and it > needs to be freely included in every O/S software package. It's > also essential that it be relevant for the required level of > expertise. Anyone unfamiliar with computer programming isn't > going to be capable of deciphering which of a myriad of > programming options is relevant for them. > > **That should be blatantly obvious.** Almost all versions of Linux, just about all compilers, LibreOffice, OpenOffice, Qucs, Firefox, MySQL and many, many others are complex softeware and they are all free. As for "Anyone unfamiliar with computer programming", that is what the series of books titled xxx For Dummies is for. > Qbasic can be upgraded to suit modern technology without changing > its format. It has a comprehensive help file that's very easy to > follow, and the keyword examples can be copy-pasted into the main > screen and run. Their function becomes readily apparent when the > variables are altered. Yet NO ONE is interested in doing it. >>> My first computer was a Commodore Vic20, and I spent many >>> enjoyable hours a day writing programs that would fit into its >>> RAM base of only a few thousand bytes. I increased its capacity >>> to around 36000 bytes at a cost of $120. My interest then shifted >>> to programming at the processor level. But my only access to the >>> 6520 microprocessor was via the operating system software stored >>> in ROM. The operating system was doing all of the bit >>> manipulation as instructed by me via a few access registers. I >>> was still one step away from directly accessing the processor. >>> And that would always be the case unless I designed the >>> operating system software as well. >> >> My first computer (that I owned) was a MITS 8080 kit computer. >> >> The first computer I programmed on was an IBM 360. >> >> Both allowed programming "at the processor level", as has every >> computer I have ever seen. > > It would be a strange programming system if it didn't reach > the processor. But that doesn't mean that the pathway to the > processor is clearly defined. The pathway is very clearly defined > when using DOS based programming systems like, Debug or Symdeb. > The user is given direct access to the processor. But they are > not at all user friendly, and are not in the same ballpark as > Qbasic as a communication tool. Babbling gibberish. <snip remaing irrelevant babble about assembly> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 15:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1d5856f2-5191-466e-b833-d33964b9ed10@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #536410 |
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com > Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: --- --- >>>> How can kids become interested in programming at the basic level >>>> when the required software has for many years been promoted by >>>> their peers as being completely useless for programming in the >>>> modern world. And one would have to be some kind of loser to use >>>> it. >>> >>> More drivel. >> >> Your arguments are not exactly complelling, are they. > > I am not making arguements, I am making comments on your arguements. > >>>> It should always be available and promoted as a stepping stone >>>> to higher level languages. Why has that experience been taken >>>> away from the kids, and anyone else who would like to understand >>>> the basics of computer programming? >>> >>> Yet more drivel. >>> >>> For elementry instruction, it is trivial to restrict usage of >>> features to just those available in Qbasic. >>> >>> Just because a language has features above and beyond Qbasic does >>> NOT mean you have to use them in an introductory lesson. >> >> Complex software isn't going to be donated at zero cost, and it >> needs to be freely included in every O/S software package. It's >> also essential that it be relevant for the required level of >> expertise. Anyone unfamiliar with computer programming isn't >> going to be capable of deciphering which of a myriad of >> programming options is relevant for them. >> >> **That should be blatantly obvious.** > > Almost all versions of Linux, just about all compilers, LibreOffice, > OpenOffice, Qucs, Firefox, MySQL and many, many others are complex > softeware and they are all free. > > As for "Anyone unfamiliar with computer programming", that is what > the series of books titled xxx For Dummies is for. Very few people would go down that road if Qbasic was installed on every computer and promoted as an introduction to computer programming. I found it very interesting writing simple programs for my Vic20, but I had no interest in reading such books. If I couldn't do it the way I did it I wouldn't have bothered wasting my time. >> Qbasic can be upgraded to suit modern technology without changing >> its format. It has a comprehensive help file that's very easy to >> follow, and the keyword examples can be copy-pasted into the main >> screen and run. Their function becomes readily apparent when the >> variables are altered. > > Yet NO ONE is interested in doing it. Quick Basic is not exactly promoted in a way that would encourage people to use it. Most of its critics are programming in higher level languages and complain that it's doesn't have as many features. It's not supposed to have, it's a BASIC language. When Qbasic is installed on every computer it will become a valuable communication tool as well as an introduction to programming. Programs can be written for the purpose of generating animation frames. But Copy-Pasting the graphics is currently only possible using Windows 95 or 98. The upgraded version could overcome this problem. Here is one such animation (72000 bytes). http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/2way-c2.gif And this is (almost) the program that generated the frames (3044 bytes). http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/est-wst2.html An animation can be accompanied by the Qbasic program of its creation by writing it into a post or web page, or by linking to a web address where it's stored. Unlimited user input is a feature of the Qbasic animation, as well as unlimited frame numbers with virtually no increase in program size. Qbasic shines brightly here as well. http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/mercxmp2.html --- --- ----- Max Keon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 00:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <si27jc-448.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #537236 |
Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com >> Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > --- > --- >>>>> How can kids become interested in programming at the basic level >>>>> when the required software has for many years been promoted by >>>>> their peers as being completely useless for programming in the >>>>> modern world. And one would have to be some kind of loser to use >>>>> it. >>>> >>>> More drivel. >>> >>> Your arguments are not exactly complelling, are they. >> >> I am not making arguements, I am making comments on your arguements. >> >>>>> It should always be available and promoted as a stepping stone >>>>> to higher level languages. Why has that experience been taken >>>>> away from the kids, and anyone else who would like to understand >>>>> the basics of computer programming? >>>> >>>> Yet more drivel. >>>> >>>> For elementry instruction, it is trivial to restrict usage of >>>> features to just those available in Qbasic. >>>> >>>> Just because a language has features above and beyond Qbasic does >>>> NOT mean you have to use them in an introductory lesson. >>> >>> Complex software isn't going to be donated at zero cost, and it >>> needs to be freely included in every O/S software package. It's >>> also essential that it be relevant for the required level of >>> expertise. Anyone unfamiliar with computer programming isn't >>> going to be capable of deciphering which of a myriad of >>> programming options is relevant for them. >>> >>> **That should be blatantly obvious.** >> >> Almost all versions of Linux, just about all compilers, LibreOffice, >> OpenOffice, Qucs, Firefox, MySQL and many, many others are complex >> softeware and they are all free. >> >> As for "Anyone unfamiliar with computer programming", that is what >> the series of books titled xxx For Dummies is for. > > Very few people would go down that road if Qbasic was installed > on every computer and promoted as an introduction to computer > programming. I found it very interesting writing simple programs > for my Vic20, but I had no interest in reading such books. If I > couldn't do it the way I did it I wouldn't have bothered wasting > my time. Very few people would use Qbasic as is shown by the utter lack of popular demand for it. >>> Qbasic can be upgraded to suit modern technology without changing >>> its format. It has a comprehensive help file that's very easy to >>> follow, and the keyword examples can be copy-pasted into the main >>> screen and run. Their function becomes readily apparent when the >>> variables are altered. >> >> Yet NO ONE is interested in doing it. > > Quick Basic is not exactly promoted in a way that would encourage > people to use it. Most of its critics are programming in higher > level languages and complain that it's doesn't have as many > features. It's not supposed to have, it's a BASIC language. Why would anyone encourage people to use a language that is both obsolete and crippled? Once again, nothing is preventing anyone from using a modern, supported version of BASIC and starting out with the simple features. A = B + C in every BASIC out there, though some require LET in front of equations; big deal. > When Qbasic is installed on every computer it will become a > valuable communication tool as well as an introduction to > programming. Programs can be written for the purpose of > generating animation frames. But Copy-Pasting the graphics is > currently only possible using Windows 95 or 98. The upgraded > version could overcome this problem. Qbasic will never rise again as no one other than you wants it. > Here is one such animation (72000 bytes). > http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/2way-c2.gif > And this is (almost) the program that generated the frames > (3044 bytes). > http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/est-wst2.html > > An animation can be accompanied by the Qbasic program of its > creation by writing it into a post or web page, or by linking > to a web address where it's stored. Unlimited user input is a > feature of the Qbasic animation, as well as unlimited frame > numbers with virtually no increase in program size. > > Qbasic shines brightly here as well. > http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/mercxmp2.html Which will run in just about any modern version of BASIC with little to no porting. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 23:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <83426bl3f0mrsfrfh2ijg8v8nqpk1vss2k@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #537249 |
On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 00:15:56 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> Very few people would go down that road if Qbasic was installed >> on every computer and promoted as an introduction to computer >> programming. I found it very interesting writing simple programs >> for my Vic20, but I had no interest in reading such books. If I >> couldn't do it the way I did it I wouldn't have bothered wasting >> my time. > >Very few people would use Qbasic as is shown by the utter lack of >popular demand for it. It's a self-fulfilling condition. It is gone from the Windows distribution, therefore it is not immediately available to all users ... and ... lookie there: "no one" wants it. *You* don't want to use it. I have little use for it. I prefer a BASIC dialect that generally works better for me. But it has as much place in a Windows distribution as some of the games do. And it is only ... what?! ... less than 1/4 megabyte spread across two files. FreeCell is three times that size. >>>> Qbasic can be upgraded to suit modern technology without changing >>>> its format. It has a comprehensive help file that's very easy to >>>> follow, and the keyword examples can be copy-pasted into the main >>>> screen and run. Their function becomes readily apparent when the >>>> variables are altered. >>> >>> Yet NO ONE is interested in doing it. Incorrect: http://www.qbasic.net/ http://www.freebasic.net/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickbasic/?source=directory QBASIC is an IDE and interpreter based on QuickBasic developed for the Windows OS. >> Quick Basic is not exactly promoted in a way that would encourage >> people to use it. Most of its critics are programming in higher >> level languages and complain that it's doesn't have as many >> features. It's not supposed to have, it's a BASIC language. > >Why would anyone encourage people to use a language that is both >obsolete and crippled? Because there are programs that are already written to do useful task without *any* modification. >Once again, nothing is preventing anyone from using a modern, supported >version of BASIC and starting out with the simple features. > >A = B + C in every BASIC out there, though some require LET in front >of equations; big deal. > >> When Qbasic is installed on every computer it will become a >> valuable communication tool as well as an introduction to >> programming. Programs can be written for the purpose of >> generating animation frames. But Copy-Pasting the graphics is >> currently only possible using Windows 95 or 98. The upgraded >> version could overcome this problem. > >Qbasic will never rise again as no one other than you wants it. Incorrect. See above. >> Here is one such animation (72000 bytes). >> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/2way-c2.gif >> And this is (almost) the program that generated the frames >> (3044 bytes). >> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/est-wst2.html >> >> An animation can be accompanied by the Qbasic program of its >> creation by writing it into a post or web page, or by linking >> to a web address where it's stored. Unlimited user input is a >> feature of the Qbasic animation, as well as unlimited frame >> numbers with virtually no increase in program size. >> >> Qbasic shines brightly here as well. >> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/mercxmp2.html > >Which will run in just about any modern version of BASIC with little >to no porting. My favorite BASIC would not run it without several changes. If it already does exactly what I want it to do in a language that was a common denominator for decades, why should I want to piss with it just because the likes of you think I don't need the language it was written in? I have better things to do than re-re-re-port working programs to different languages that may only be "different" -- not "better" -- for my current and *immediate* purpose.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 05:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2k7jc-ct9.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #537304 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 00:15:56 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>> Very few people would go down that road if Qbasic was installed >>> on every computer and promoted as an introduction to computer >>> programming. I found it very interesting writing simple programs >>> for my Vic20, but I had no interest in reading such books. If I >>> couldn't do it the way I did it I wouldn't have bothered wasting >>> my time. >> >>Very few people would use Qbasic as is shown by the utter lack of >>popular demand for it. > > It's a self-fulfilling condition. It is gone from the Windows > distribution, therefore it is not immediately available to all users > ... and ... lookie there: "no one" wants it. > > *You* don't want to use it. I have little use for it. I prefer a BASIC > dialect that generally works better for me. > > But it has as much place in a Windows distribution as some of the > games do. And it is only ... what?! ... less than 1/4 megabyte spread > across two files. > > FreeCell is three times that size. Yet there is no popular outcry for Qbasic while when some games were removed from the Windows distribution there was a huge popular outcry. >>>>> Qbasic can be upgraded to suit modern technology without changing >>>>> its format. It has a comprehensive help file that's very easy to >>>>> follow, and the keyword examples can be copy-pasted into the main >>>>> screen and run. Their function becomes readily apparent when the >>>>> variables are altered. >>>> >>>> Yet NO ONE is interested in doing it. > > Incorrect: > http://www.qbasic.net/ > http://www.freebasic.net/ > http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickbasic/?source=directory > QBASIC is an IDE and interpreter based on QuickBasic developed for the > Windows OS. OK, problem solved and everyone can quit whinning about it. >>> Quick Basic is not exactly promoted in a way that would encourage >>> people to use it. Most of its critics are programming in higher >>> level languages and complain that it's doesn't have as many >>> features. It's not supposed to have, it's a BASIC language. >> >>Why would anyone encourage people to use a language that is both >>obsolete and crippled? > > Because there are programs that are already written to do useful task > without *any* modification. Yep, it just about every language ever invented, but so what? If there were any general need for such there would be a popular outcry for support, but there is not. Besides, you yourself said the problem was solved a few lines above. >>Once again, nothing is preventing anyone from using a modern, supported >>version of BASIC and starting out with the simple features. >> >>A = B + C in every BASIC out there, though some require LET in front >>of equations; big deal. >> >>> When Qbasic is installed on every computer it will become a >>> valuable communication tool as well as an introduction to >>> programming. Programs can be written for the purpose of >>> generating animation frames. But Copy-Pasting the graphics is >>> currently only possible using Windows 95 or 98. The upgraded >>> version could overcome this problem. >> >>Qbasic will never rise again as no one other than you wants it. > > Incorrect. See above. OK, problem solved and everyone can quit whinning about it. >>> Here is one such animation (72000 bytes). >>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/2way-c2.gif >>> And this is (almost) the program that generated the frames >>> (3044 bytes). >>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/est-wst2.html >>> >>> An animation can be accompanied by the Qbasic program of its >>> creation by writing it into a post or web page, or by linking >>> to a web address where it's stored. Unlimited user input is a >>> feature of the Qbasic animation, as well as unlimited frame >>> numbers with virtually no increase in program size. >>> >>> Qbasic shines brightly here as well. >>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/mercxmp2.html >> >>Which will run in just about any modern version of BASIC with little >>to no porting. > > My favorite BASIC would not run it without several changes. > > If it already does exactly what I want it to do in a language that was > a common denominator for decades, why should I want to piss with it > just because the likes of you think I don't need the language it was > written in? > > I have better things to do than re-re-re-port working programs to > different languages that may only be "different" -- not "better" -- > for my current and *immediate* purpose. You yourself said the problem was solved a few lines above. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-05 17:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ee2c5298-f586-4364-a95e-058eb067809e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #537304 |
Wally W. wrote: > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>> Very few people would go down that road if Qbasic was installed >>> on every computer and promoted as an introduction to computer >>> programming. I found it very interesting writing simple programs >>> for my Vic20, but I had no interest in reading such books. If I >>> couldn't do it the way I did it I wouldn't have bothered wasting >>> my time. >> >> Very few people would use Qbasic as is shown by the utter lack of >> popular demand for it. > > It's a self-fulfilling condition. It is gone from the Windows > distribution, therefore it is not immediately available to all users > ... and ... lookie there: "no one" wants it. > > *You* don't want to use it. I have little use for it. I prefer a BASIC > dialect that generally works better for me. > > But it has as much place in a Windows distribution as some of the > games do. And it is only ... what?! ... less than 1/4 megabyte spread > across two files. > > FreeCell is three times that size. > >>>>> Qbasic can be upgraded to suit modern technology without changing >>>>> its format. It has a comprehensive help file that's very easy to >>>>> follow, and the keyword examples can be copy-pasted into the main >>>>> screen and run. Their function becomes readily apparent when the >>>>> variables are altered. >>>> >>>> Yet NO ONE is interested in doing it. > > Incorrect: > http://www.qbasic.net/ > http://www.freebasic.net/ > http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickbasic/?source=directory > QBASIC is an IDE and interpreter based on QuickBasic developed for the > Windows OS. I have to say I'm very impressed with freebasic and where it appears to be heading. And the help system is very user friendly. It would be a fairly simple process to make the move to freebasic for anyone familiar with Qbasic. But with the scuttling of Qbasic the user base generated from that source is diminishing, and it will continue to do so. If Qbasic is gone for good, a simplified (64 bit capable) version of freebasic that's comparable to Qbasic could be recommended as an introduction to the full blown version. The introductory version may satisfy one's needs for ever, but the next step is very simple if it's ever needed. ----- Max Keon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 02:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojjcjc-kaq.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #537587 |
Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > Wally W. wrote: >> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>> Very few people would go down that road if Qbasic was installed >>>> on every computer and promoted as an introduction to computer >>>> programming. I found it very interesting writing simple programs >>>> for my Vic20, but I had no interest in reading such books. If I >>>> couldn't do it the way I did it I wouldn't have bothered wasting >>>> my time. >>> >>> Very few people would use Qbasic as is shown by the utter lack of >>> popular demand for it. >> >> It's a self-fulfilling condition. It is gone from the Windows >> distribution, therefore it is not immediately available to all users >> ... and ... lookie there: "no one" wants it. >> >> *You* don't want to use it. I have little use for it. I prefer a BASIC >> dialect that generally works better for me. >> >> But it has as much place in a Windows distribution as some of the >> games do. And it is only ... what?! ... less than 1/4 megabyte spread >> across two files. >> >> FreeCell is three times that size. >> >>>>>> Qbasic can be upgraded to suit modern technology without changing >>>>>> its format. It has a comprehensive help file that's very easy to >>>>>> follow, and the keyword examples can be copy-pasted into the main >>>>>> screen and run. Their function becomes readily apparent when the >>>>>> variables are altered. >>>>> >>>>> Yet NO ONE is interested in doing it. >> >> Incorrect: >> http://www.qbasic.net/ >> http://www.freebasic.net/ >> http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickbasic/?source=directory >> QBASIC is an IDE and interpreter based on QuickBasic developed for the >> Windows OS. > > I have to say I'm very impressed with freebasic and where it > appears to be heading. And the help system is very user friendly. > It would be a fairly simple process to make the move to freebasic > for anyone familiar with Qbasic. But with the scuttling of Qbasic > the user base generated from that source is diminishing, and it > will continue to do so. > > If Qbasic is gone for good, a simplified (64 bit capable) version > of freebasic that's comparable to Qbasic could be recommended as > an introduction to the full blown version. The introductory > version may satisfy one's needs for ever, but the next step is > very simple if it's ever needed. > > ----- > > Max Keon It is obvious you have never taken a programming course. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 00:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9bj76bdekkkgb9imripl2apf596uv84rfc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #537608 |
On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 02:37:12 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> Wally W. wrote: >>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>> Very few people would go down that road if Qbasic was installed >>>>> on every computer and promoted as an introduction to computer >>>>> programming. I found it very interesting writing simple programs >>>>> for my Vic20, but I had no interest in reading such books. If I >>>>> couldn't do it the way I did it I wouldn't have bothered wasting >>>>> my time. >>>> >>>> Very few people would use Qbasic as is shown by the utter lack of >>>> popular demand for it. >>> >>> It's a self-fulfilling condition. It is gone from the Windows >>> distribution, therefore it is not immediately available to all users >>> ... and ... lookie there: "no one" wants it. >>> >>> *You* don't want to use it. I have little use for it. I prefer a BASIC >>> dialect that generally works better for me. >>> >>> But it has as much place in a Windows distribution as some of the >>> games do. And it is only ... what?! ... less than 1/4 megabyte spread >>> across two files. >>> >>> FreeCell is three times that size. >>> >>>>>>> Qbasic can be upgraded to suit modern technology without changing >>>>>>> its format. It has a comprehensive help file that's very easy to >>>>>>> follow, and the keyword examples can be copy-pasted into the main >>>>>>> screen and run. Their function becomes readily apparent when the >>>>>>> variables are altered. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yet NO ONE is interested in doing it. >>> >>> Incorrect: >>> http://www.qbasic.net/ >>> http://www.freebasic.net/ >>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickbasic/?source=directory >>> QBASIC is an IDE and interpreter based on QuickBasic developed for the >>> Windows OS. >> >> I have to say I'm very impressed with freebasic and where it >> appears to be heading. And the help system is very user friendly. >> It would be a fairly simple process to make the move to freebasic >> for anyone familiar with Qbasic. But with the scuttling of Qbasic >> the user base generated from that source is diminishing, and it >> will continue to do so. >> >> If Qbasic is gone for good, a simplified (64 bit capable) version >> of freebasic that's comparable to Qbasic could be recommended as >> an introduction to the full blown version. The introductory >> version may satisfy one's needs for ever, but the next step is >> very simple if it's ever needed. >> >> ----- >> >> Max Keon > >It is obvious you have never taken a programming course. If true, why would that be relevant to the discussion about QBASIC being on home computers, where vast numbers of people never took a programming course; many are too young to be admitted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 15:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005263C47573FB7@aca40775.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #537624 |
Wally W. wrote: > On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 02:37:12 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>> Wally W. wrote: >>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> Max Keon <msk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>>>> Very few people would go down that road if Qbasic was installed >>>>>> on every computer and promoted as an introduction to computer >>>>>> programming. I found it very interesting writing simple programs >>>>>> for my Vic20, but I had no interest in reading such books. If I >>>>>> couldn't do it the way I did it I wouldn't have bothered wasting >>>>>> my time. >>>>> >>>>> Very few people would use Qbasic as is shown by the utter lack of >>>>> popular demand for it. >>>> >>>> It's a self-fulfilling condition. It is gone from the Windows >>>> distribution, therefore it is not immediately available to all users >>>> ... and ... lookie there: "no one" wants it. >>>> >>>> *You* don't want to use it. I have little use for it. I prefer a BASIC >>>> dialect that generally works better for me. >>>> >>>> But it has as much place in a Windows distribution as some of the >>>> games do. And it is only ... what?! ... less than 1/4 megabyte spread >>>> across two files. >>>> >>>> FreeCell is three times that size. >>>> >>>>>>>> Qbasic can be upgraded to suit modern technology without changing >>>>>>>> its format. It has a comprehensive help file that's very easy to >>>>>>>> follow, and the keyword examples can be copy-pasted into the main >>>>>>>> screen and run. Their function becomes readily apparent when the >>>>>>>> variables are altered. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yet NO ONE is interested in doing it. >>>> >>>> Incorrect: >>>> http://www.qbasic.net/ >>>> http://www.freebasic.net/ >>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickbasic/?source=directory >>>> QBASIC is an IDE and interpreter based on QuickBasic developed for the >>>> Windows OS. >>> >>> I have to say I'm very impressed with freebasic and where it >>> appears to be heading. And the help system is very user friendly. >>> It would be a fairly simple process to make the move to freebasic >>> for anyone familiar with Qbasic. But with the scuttling of Qbasic >>> the user base generated from that source is diminishing, and it >>> will continue to do so. >>> >>> If Qbasic is gone for good, a simplified (64 bit capable) version >>> of freebasic that's comparable to Qbasic could be recommended as >>> an introduction to the full blown version. The introductory >>> version may satisfy one's needs for ever, but the next step is >>> very simple if it's ever needed. >>> >>> ----- >>> >>> Max Keon >> >>It is obvious you have never taken a programming course. > > If true, why would that be relevant to the discussion about QBASIC > being on home computers, where vast numbers of people never took a > programming course; many are too young to be admitted. One can never be too young to learn how to program; go read about SMALLTALK. //BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web