Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > sci.physics > #532266 > unrolled thread

The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century.

Started byMax Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au>
First post2015-11-11 19:50 -0800
Last post2015-11-25 22:57 -0800
Articles 20 on this page of 180 — 15 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics


Contents

  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 1 of 9  [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  Next page →


#532266 — The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century.

FromMax Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au>
Date2015-11-11 19:50 -0800
SubjectThe Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century.
Message-ID<f8d516e4-c84d-4ea1-a440-6398fedd211c@googlegroups.com>
The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. 

Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and 
Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe, 
which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer 
available. 

Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I 
obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be 
downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require."

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. 

I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address. 
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html 

If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of 
the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's 
nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is 
that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software 
and most folk have progressed beyond that. 

Quick Basic can be used to generate the frames for animations. But 
creating animations is very time consuming and the files can be extremely 
large. Posting a Qbasic program of only a few thousand bytes can give the 
equivalent of an animation that would fill up a hard drive, and it will 
have user input capability. 

This program performs calculations at 7.6 million steps 
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/mercxmp3.html 
Its purpose should be evident here 
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/pio-merc.html

-----

Max Keon

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#532278

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-11-12 04:22 +0000
Message-ID<vogdhc-9dq.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#532266
Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. 
> 
> Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and 
> Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe, 
> which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer 
> available. 
> 
> Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I 
> obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be 
> downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require."
> 
> 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. 
> 
> I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address. 
> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html 
> 
> If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of 
> the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's 
> nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is 
> that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software 
> and most folk have progressed beyond that. 

I would guess 99% of people have zero interest in programming Basic
to do anything.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#532315

Fromdvus <dven1@adelphia.net>
Date2015-11-12 10:05 -0500
Message-ID<dajo50Fodo0U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#532278
On 11/11/2015 11:22 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century.
>>
>> Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and
>> Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe,
>> which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer
>> available.
>>
>> Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I
>> obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be
>> downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require."
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address.
>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html
>>
>> If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of
>> the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's
>> nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is
>> that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software
>> and most folk have progressed beyond that.
>
> I would guess 99% of people have zero interest in programming Basic
> to do anything.

I'm finally one of the "1%" I keep hearing about!

-- 
dvus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#532407

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-11-12 19:10 +0000
Message-ID<ip4fhc-ei2.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#532315
dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
> On 11/11/2015 11:22 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>> The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century.
>>>
>>> Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and
>>> Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe,
>>> which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer
>>> available.
>>>
>>> Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I
>>> obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be
>>> downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require."
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address.
>>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html
>>>
>>> If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of
>>> the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's
>>> nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is
>>> that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software
>>> and most folk have progressed beyond that.
>>
>> I would guess 99% of people have zero interest in programming Basic
>> to do anything.
> 
> I'm finally one of the "1%" I keep hearing about!
 
One wonders why anyone in this day and age would be using BASIC for
anything given it's lack of usefull I/O and lack interprocess
communications of any kind.

If one wants an interpreted language, there is Java, Javascript, PHP,
Ruby, Perl, Python, Forth, Lisp, Tcl, and many others.



-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#532686

Fromdvus <dven1@adelphia.net>
Date2015-11-13 05:52 -0500
Message-ID<daltmnFashvU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#532407
On 11/12/2015 2:10 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> On 11/11/2015 11:22 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>> The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century.
>>>>
>>>> Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and
>>>> Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe,
>>>> which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer
>>>> available.
>>>>
>>>> Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I
>>>> obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be
>>>> downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require."
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address.
>>>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html
>>>>
>>>> If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of
>>>> the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's
>>>> nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is
>>>> that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software
>>>> and most folk have progressed beyond that.
>>>
>>> I would guess 99% of people have zero interest in programming Basic
>>> to do anything.
>>
>> I'm finally one of the "1%" I keep hearing about!
>
> One wonders why anyone in this day and age would be using BASIC for
> anything given it's lack of usefull I/O and lack interprocess
> communications of any kind.

Well, to start with, it's fun. There can be little doubt that other 
languages are much more useful for practical purposes, but Basic offers 
a simple introduction to the "basics" of program writing. Serious 
programmers must, of course, move on to more serious languages.

> If one wants an interpreted language, there is Java, Javascript, PHP,
> Ruby, Perl, Python, Forth, Lisp, Tcl, and many others.

In my younger days I preferred ML to do serious things but in the 
interest of full disclosure I must admit to not doing much coding in a 
long, long time.

-- 
dvus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#532791

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-11-13 19:13 +0000
Message-ID<hbphhc-nrb.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#532686
dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
> On 11/12/2015 2:10 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2015 11:22 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and
>>>>> Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe,
>>>>> which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer
>>>>> available.
>>>>>
>>>>> Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I
>>>>> obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be
>>>>> downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require."
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address.
>>>>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html
>>>>>
>>>>> If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of
>>>>> the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's
>>>>> nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is
>>>>> that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software
>>>>> and most folk have progressed beyond that.
>>>>
>>>> I would guess 99% of people have zero interest in programming Basic
>>>> to do anything.
>>>
>>> I'm finally one of the "1%" I keep hearing about!
>>
>> One wonders why anyone in this day and age would be using BASIC for
>> anything given it's lack of usefull I/O and lack interprocess
>> communications of any kind.
> 
> Well, to start with, it's fun. There can be little doubt that other 
> languages are much more useful for practical purposes, but Basic offers 
> a simple introduction to the "basics" of program writing. Serious 
> programmers must, of course, move on to more serious languages.

You do know BASIC is an acronym for Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic
Instruction Code and was invented as a simple language to be used to
teach beginning programming?

The only reason anyone ever used BASIC for non-educational tasks was
BASIC was simple and free while FORTRAN compilers were scarce and very
expensive.

One of the things BASIC was very usefull for was doing calculations
that were tedious manually or with a slide rule that today are trivial
with a $10 calculator, e.g. given X and Y of a vector, calculate the
magnitude and angle.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#532911

Fromdvus <dven1@adelphia.net>
Date2015-11-13 19:38 -0500
Message-ID<dane3rFnc99U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#532791
On 11/13/2015 2:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> On 11/12/2015 2:10 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/2015 11:22 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and
>>>>>> Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe,
>>>>>> which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer
>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I
>>>>>> obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be
>>>>>> downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address.
>>>>>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of
>>>>>> the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's
>>>>>> nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is
>>>>>> that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software
>>>>>> and most folk have progressed beyond that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would guess 99% of people have zero interest in programming Basic
>>>>> to do anything.
>>>>
>>>> I'm finally one of the "1%" I keep hearing about!
>>>
>>> One wonders why anyone in this day and age would be using BASIC for
>>> anything given it's lack of usefull I/O and lack interprocess
>>> communications of any kind.
>>
>> Well, to start with, it's fun. There can be little doubt that other
>> languages are much more useful for practical purposes, but Basic offers
>> a simple introduction to the "basics" of program writing. Serious
>> programmers must, of course, move on to more serious languages.
>
> You do know BASIC is an acronym for Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic
> Instruction Code and was invented as a simple language to be used to
> teach beginning programming?

Yes, that's kinda what I said above.

> The only reason anyone ever used BASIC for non-educational tasks was
> BASIC was simple and free while FORTRAN compilers were scarce and very
> expensive.

Yes, again, that's what I said.

> One of the things BASIC was very usefull for was doing calculations
> that were tedious manually or with a slide rule that today are trivial
> with a $10 calculator, e.g. given X and Y of a vector, calculate the
> magnitude and angle.

It was also very useful to get kids interested in programming since, as 
you pointed out, other forms of programming were harder to implement.

-- 
dvus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#532933

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-11-14 01:27 +0000
Message-ID<k9fihc-67e.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#532911
dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
> On 11/13/2015 2:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/12/2015 2:10 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/2015 11:22 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>> The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and
>>>>>>> Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe,
>>>>>>> which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer
>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I
>>>>>>> obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be
>>>>>>> downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address.
>>>>>>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of
>>>>>>> the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's
>>>>>>> nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is
>>>>>>> that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software
>>>>>>> and most folk have progressed beyond that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would guess 99% of people have zero interest in programming Basic
>>>>>> to do anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm finally one of the "1%" I keep hearing about!
>>>>
>>>> One wonders why anyone in this day and age would be using BASIC for
>>>> anything given it's lack of usefull I/O and lack interprocess
>>>> communications of any kind.
>>>
>>> Well, to start with, it's fun. There can be little doubt that other
>>> languages are much more useful for practical purposes, but Basic offers
>>> a simple introduction to the "basics" of program writing. Serious
>>> programmers must, of course, move on to more serious languages.
>>
>> You do know BASIC is an acronym for Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic
>> Instruction Code and was invented as a simple language to be used to
>> teach beginning programming?
> 
> Yes, that's kinda what I said above.
> 
>> The only reason anyone ever used BASIC for non-educational tasks was
>> BASIC was simple and free while FORTRAN compilers were scarce and very
>> expensive.
> 
> Yes, again, that's what I said.
> 
>> One of the things BASIC was very usefull for was doing calculations
>> that were tedious manually or with a slide rule that today are trivial
>> with a $10 calculator, e.g. given X and Y of a vector, calculate the
>> magnitude and angle.
> 
> It was also very useful to get kids interested in programming since, as 
> you pointed out, other forms of programming were harder to implement.
 
I think you missed the part where I said "in this day and age".


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#533104

Fromdvus <dven1@adelphia.net>
Date2015-11-14 15:55 -0500
Message-ID<dapldiFa5t7U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#532933
On 11/13/2015 8:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> On 11/13/2015 2:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/12/2015 2:10 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/2015 11:22 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and
>>>>>>>> Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe,
>>>>>>>> which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer
>>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I
>>>>>>>> obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be
>>>>>>>> downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address.
>>>>>>>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of
>>>>>>>> the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's
>>>>>>>> nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is
>>>>>>>> that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software
>>>>>>>> and most folk have progressed beyond that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would guess 99% of people have zero interest in programming Basic
>>>>>>> to do anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm finally one of the "1%" I keep hearing about!
>>>>>
>>>>> One wonders why anyone in this day and age would be using BASIC for
>>>>> anything given it's lack of usefull I/O and lack interprocess
>>>>> communications of any kind.
>>>>
>>>> Well, to start with, it's fun. There can be little doubt that other
>>>> languages are much more useful for practical purposes, but Basic offers
>>>> a simple introduction to the "basics" of program writing. Serious
>>>> programmers must, of course, move on to more serious languages.
>>>
>>> You do know BASIC is an acronym for Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic
>>> Instruction Code and was invented as a simple language to be used to
>>> teach beginning programming?
>>
>> Yes, that's kinda what I said above.
>>
>>> The only reason anyone ever used BASIC for non-educational tasks was
>>> BASIC was simple and free while FORTRAN compilers were scarce and very
>>> expensive.
>>
>> Yes, again, that's what I said.
>>
>>> One of the things BASIC was very usefull for was doing calculations
>>> that were tedious manually or with a slide rule that today are trivial
>>> with a $10 calculator, e.g. given X and Y of a vector, calculate the
>>> magnitude and angle.
>>
>> It was also very useful to get kids interested in programming since, as
>> you pointed out, other forms of programming were harder to implement.
>
> I think you missed the part where I said "in this day and age".

What other language would you think suitable to teach to young kids 
these days? They require almost instant gratification to remain 
interested in anything.

-- 
dvus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#533119

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-11-14 21:28 +0000
Message-ID<jklkhc-4b5.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#533104
dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
> On 11/13/2015 8:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2015 2:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/12/2015 2:10 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/11/2015 11:22 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and
>>>>>>>>> Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe,
>>>>>>>>> which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer
>>>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I
>>>>>>>>> obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be
>>>>>>>>> downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address.
>>>>>>>>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of
>>>>>>>>> the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's
>>>>>>>>> nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is
>>>>>>>>> that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software
>>>>>>>>> and most folk have progressed beyond that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would guess 99% of people have zero interest in programming Basic
>>>>>>>> to do anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm finally one of the "1%" I keep hearing about!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One wonders why anyone in this day and age would be using BASIC for
>>>>>> anything given it's lack of usefull I/O and lack interprocess
>>>>>> communications of any kind.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, to start with, it's fun. There can be little doubt that other
>>>>> languages are much more useful for practical purposes, but Basic offers
>>>>> a simple introduction to the "basics" of program writing. Serious
>>>>> programmers must, of course, move on to more serious languages.
>>>>
>>>> You do know BASIC is an acronym for Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic
>>>> Instruction Code and was invented as a simple language to be used to
>>>> teach beginning programming?
>>>
>>> Yes, that's kinda what I said above.
>>>
>>>> The only reason anyone ever used BASIC for non-educational tasks was
>>>> BASIC was simple and free while FORTRAN compilers were scarce and very
>>>> expensive.
>>>
>>> Yes, again, that's what I said.
>>>
>>>> One of the things BASIC was very usefull for was doing calculations
>>>> that were tedious manually or with a slide rule that today are trivial
>>>> with a $10 calculator, e.g. given X and Y of a vector, calculate the
>>>> magnitude and angle.
>>>
>>> It was also very useful to get kids interested in programming since, as
>>> you pointed out, other forms of programming were harder to implement.
>>
>> I think you missed the part where I said "in this day and age".
> 
> What other language would you think suitable to teach to young kids 
> these days? They require almost instant gratification to remain 
> interested in anything.

Kids these days are also NOT into command lines, so any language
where it is easy to display a window or a web page, and there are
lots of them.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#533280

Fromdvus <dven1@adelphia.net>
Date2015-11-15 10:30 -0500
Message-ID<darmpsFpnerU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#533119
On 11/14/2015 4:28 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> On 11/13/2015 8:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/2015 2:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/12/2015 2:10 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2015 11:22 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and
>>>>>>>>>> Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe,
>>>>>>>>>> which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer
>>>>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I
>>>>>>>>>> obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be
>>>>>>>>>> downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address.
>>>>>>>>>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of
>>>>>>>>>> the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's
>>>>>>>>>> nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is
>>>>>>>>>> that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software
>>>>>>>>>> and most folk have progressed beyond that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would guess 99% of people have zero interest in programming Basic
>>>>>>>>> to do anything.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm finally one of the "1%" I keep hearing about!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One wonders why anyone in this day and age would be using BASIC for
>>>>>>> anything given it's lack of usefull I/O and lack interprocess
>>>>>>> communications of any kind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, to start with, it's fun. There can be little doubt that other
>>>>>> languages are much more useful for practical purposes, but Basic offers
>>>>>> a simple introduction to the "basics" of program writing. Serious
>>>>>> programmers must, of course, move on to more serious languages.
>>>>>
>>>>> You do know BASIC is an acronym for Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic
>>>>> Instruction Code and was invented as a simple language to be used to
>>>>> teach beginning programming?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that's kinda what I said above.
>>>>
>>>>> The only reason anyone ever used BASIC for non-educational tasks was
>>>>> BASIC was simple and free while FORTRAN compilers were scarce and very
>>>>> expensive.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, again, that's what I said.
>>>>
>>>>> One of the things BASIC was very usefull for was doing calculations
>>>>> that were tedious manually or with a slide rule that today are trivial
>>>>> with a $10 calculator, e.g. given X and Y of a vector, calculate the
>>>>> magnitude and angle.
>>>>
>>>> It was also very useful to get kids interested in programming since, as
>>>> you pointed out, other forms of programming were harder to implement.
>>>
>>> I think you missed the part where I said "in this day and age".
>>
>> What other language would you think suitable to teach to young kids
>> these days? They require almost instant gratification to remain
>> interested in anything.
>
> Kids these days are also NOT into command lines, so any language
> where it is easy to display a window or a web page, and there are
> lots of them.

I'm not aware of any that are as easy as Basic to learn and use almost 
immediately to hold their interest.

-- 
dvus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#533339

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-11-15 20:23 +0000
Message-ID<j66nhc-40e.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#533280
dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
> On 11/14/2015 4:28 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2015 8:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/13/2015 2:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/12/2015 2:10 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2015 11:22 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and
>>>>>>>>>>> Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe,
>>>>>>>>>>> which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer
>>>>>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I
>>>>>>>>>>> obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be
>>>>>>>>>>> downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address.
>>>>>>>>>>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of
>>>>>>>>>>> the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's
>>>>>>>>>>> nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is
>>>>>>>>>>> that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software
>>>>>>>>>>> and most folk have progressed beyond that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would guess 99% of people have zero interest in programming Basic
>>>>>>>>>> to do anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm finally one of the "1%" I keep hearing about!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One wonders why anyone in this day and age would be using BASIC for
>>>>>>>> anything given it's lack of usefull I/O and lack interprocess
>>>>>>>> communications of any kind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, to start with, it's fun. There can be little doubt that other
>>>>>>> languages are much more useful for practical purposes, but Basic offers
>>>>>>> a simple introduction to the "basics" of program writing. Serious
>>>>>>> programmers must, of course, move on to more serious languages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You do know BASIC is an acronym for Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic
>>>>>> Instruction Code and was invented as a simple language to be used to
>>>>>> teach beginning programming?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that's kinda what I said above.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only reason anyone ever used BASIC for non-educational tasks was
>>>>>> BASIC was simple and free while FORTRAN compilers were scarce and very
>>>>>> expensive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, again, that's what I said.
>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the things BASIC was very usefull for was doing calculations
>>>>>> that were tedious manually or with a slide rule that today are trivial
>>>>>> with a $10 calculator, e.g. given X and Y of a vector, calculate the
>>>>>> magnitude and angle.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was also very useful to get kids interested in programming since, as
>>>>> you pointed out, other forms of programming were harder to implement.
>>>>
>>>> I think you missed the part where I said "in this day and age".
>>>
>>> What other language would you think suitable to teach to young kids
>>> these days? They require almost instant gratification to remain
>>> interested in anything.
>>
>> Kids these days are also NOT into command lines, so any language
>> where it is easy to display a window or a web page, and there are
>> lots of them.
> 
> I'm not aware of any that are as easy as Basic to learn and use almost 
> immediately to hold their interest.

If you limit yourself the the capabilities of BASIC, then almost any
language would do.

Likely the simplest is command line PHP or Perl if all you want to do
is simple calculations, but both have orders of magnitude more capabilities
than BASIC.

The primary reason BASIC is so easy to learn is that BASIC has very
little in the way of capabilities. Once you want to do more, i.e.
graphics, web pages, interprocess communications, database access,
you have to switch to a more usefull language.

Just because a language has advanced features (compared to BASIC) does
not mean you have to start off using those features.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#533463

Fromdvus <dven1@adelphia.net>
Date2015-11-16 05:42 -0500
Message-ID<datq9uFbkm2U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#533339
On 11/15/2015 3:23 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> On 11/14/2015 4:28 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/2015 8:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/13/2015 2:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/12/2015 2:10 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2015 11:22 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer
>>>>>>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I
>>>>>>>>>>>> obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address.
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's
>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is
>>>>>>>>>>>> that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software
>>>>>>>>>>>> and most folk have progressed beyond that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would guess 99% of people have zero interest in programming Basic
>>>>>>>>>>> to do anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm finally one of the "1%" I keep hearing about!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One wonders why anyone in this day and age would be using BASIC for
>>>>>>>>> anything given it's lack of usefull I/O and lack interprocess
>>>>>>>>> communications of any kind.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, to start with, it's fun. There can be little doubt that other
>>>>>>>> languages are much more useful for practical purposes, but Basic offers
>>>>>>>> a simple introduction to the "basics" of program writing. Serious
>>>>>>>> programmers must, of course, move on to more serious languages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You do know BASIC is an acronym for Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic
>>>>>>> Instruction Code and was invented as a simple language to be used to
>>>>>>> teach beginning programming?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that's kinda what I said above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only reason anyone ever used BASIC for non-educational tasks was
>>>>>>> BASIC was simple and free while FORTRAN compilers were scarce and very
>>>>>>> expensive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, again, that's what I said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of the things BASIC was very usefull for was doing calculations
>>>>>>> that were tedious manually or with a slide rule that today are trivial
>>>>>>> with a $10 calculator, e.g. given X and Y of a vector, calculate the
>>>>>>> magnitude and angle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was also very useful to get kids interested in programming since, as
>>>>>> you pointed out, other forms of programming were harder to implement.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you missed the part where I said "in this day and age".
>>>>
>>>> What other language would you think suitable to teach to young kids
>>>> these days? They require almost instant gratification to remain
>>>> interested in anything.
>>>
>>> Kids these days are also NOT into command lines, so any language
>>> where it is easy to display a window or a web page, and there are
>>> lots of them.
>>
>> I'm not aware of any that are as easy as Basic to learn and use almost
>> immediately to hold their interest.
>
> If you limit yourself the the capabilities of BASIC, then almost any
> language would do.
>
> Likely the simplest is command line PHP or Perl if all you want to do
> is simple calculations, but both have orders of magnitude more capabilities
> than BASIC.
>
> The primary reason BASIC is so easy to learn is that BASIC has very
> little in the way of capabilities. Once you want to do more, i.e.
> graphics, web pages, interprocess communications, database access,
> you have to switch to a more usefull language.
>
> Just because a language has advanced features (compared to BASIC) does
> not mean you have to start off using those features.

I can see that it's not likely I'll ever get you to agree with my 
opinion regarding the efficacy of using Basic to introduce kids to 
computers and programming so I'll stop wasting both of our times. I feel 
that Basic's simplicity and immediacy of results is exactly why it works 
well for this situation, you do not. Let's leave it there for now.

-- 
dvus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#533568

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-11-16 19:29 +0000
Message-ID<kdnphc-k6m.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#533463
dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
> On 11/15/2015 3:23 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/14/2015 4:28 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/13/2015 8:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/13/2015 2:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/12/2015 2:10 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2015 11:22 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and most folk have progressed beyond that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would guess 99% of people have zero interest in programming Basic
>>>>>>>>>>>> to do anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm finally one of the "1%" I keep hearing about!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One wonders why anyone in this day and age would be using BASIC for
>>>>>>>>>> anything given it's lack of usefull I/O and lack interprocess
>>>>>>>>>> communications of any kind.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, to start with, it's fun. There can be little doubt that other
>>>>>>>>> languages are much more useful for practical purposes, but Basic offers
>>>>>>>>> a simple introduction to the "basics" of program writing. Serious
>>>>>>>>> programmers must, of course, move on to more serious languages.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You do know BASIC is an acronym for Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic
>>>>>>>> Instruction Code and was invented as a simple language to be used to
>>>>>>>> teach beginning programming?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, that's kinda what I said above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only reason anyone ever used BASIC for non-educational tasks was
>>>>>>>> BASIC was simple and free while FORTRAN compilers were scarce and very
>>>>>>>> expensive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, again, that's what I said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One of the things BASIC was very usefull for was doing calculations
>>>>>>>> that were tedious manually or with a slide rule that today are trivial
>>>>>>>> with a $10 calculator, e.g. given X and Y of a vector, calculate the
>>>>>>>> magnitude and angle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was also very useful to get kids interested in programming since, as
>>>>>>> you pointed out, other forms of programming were harder to implement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you missed the part where I said "in this day and age".
>>>>>
>>>>> What other language would you think suitable to teach to young kids
>>>>> these days? They require almost instant gratification to remain
>>>>> interested in anything.
>>>>
>>>> Kids these days are also NOT into command lines, so any language
>>>> where it is easy to display a window or a web page, and there are
>>>> lots of them.
>>>
>>> I'm not aware of any that are as easy as Basic to learn and use almost
>>> immediately to hold their interest.
>>
>> If you limit yourself the the capabilities of BASIC, then almost any
>> language would do.
>>
>> Likely the simplest is command line PHP or Perl if all you want to do
>> is simple calculations, but both have orders of magnitude more capabilities
>> than BASIC.
>>
>> The primary reason BASIC is so easy to learn is that BASIC has very
>> little in the way of capabilities. Once you want to do more, i.e.
>> graphics, web pages, interprocess communications, database access,
>> you have to switch to a more usefull language.
>>
>> Just because a language has advanced features (compared to BASIC) does
>> not mean you have to start off using those features.
> 
> I can see that it's not likely I'll ever get you to agree with my 
> opinion regarding the efficacy of using Basic to introduce kids to 
> computers and programming so I'll stop wasting both of our times. I feel 
> that Basic's simplicity and immediacy of results is exactly why it works 
> well for this situation, you do not. Let's leave it there for now.

Nope, as quite frankly, your position is ridiculous.

If you restrict capabilities to those of BASIC, many other languages
are just as easy to learn and there are many that are interpreted for
"immediacy of results".



-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#533745

Fromdvus <dven1@adelphia.net>
Date2015-11-17 05:08 -0500
Message-ID<db0cm6F19ceU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#533568
On 11/16/2015 2:29 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> On 11/15/2015 3:23 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/14/2015 4:28 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/13/2015 8:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2015 2:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/12/2015 2:10 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2015 11:22 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and most folk have progressed beyond that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would guess 99% of people have zero interest in programming Basic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm finally one of the "1%" I keep hearing about!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One wonders why anyone in this day and age would be using BASIC for
>>>>>>>>>>> anything given it's lack of usefull I/O and lack interprocess
>>>>>>>>>>> communications of any kind.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, to start with, it's fun. There can be little doubt that other
>>>>>>>>>> languages are much more useful for practical purposes, but Basic offers
>>>>>>>>>> a simple introduction to the "basics" of program writing. Serious
>>>>>>>>>> programmers must, of course, move on to more serious languages.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You do know BASIC is an acronym for Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic
>>>>>>>>> Instruction Code and was invented as a simple language to be used to
>>>>>>>>> teach beginning programming?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, that's kinda what I said above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only reason anyone ever used BASIC for non-educational tasks was
>>>>>>>>> BASIC was simple and free while FORTRAN compilers were scarce and very
>>>>>>>>> expensive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, again, that's what I said.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One of the things BASIC was very usefull for was doing calculations
>>>>>>>>> that were tedious manually or with a slide rule that today are trivial
>>>>>>>>> with a $10 calculator, e.g. given X and Y of a vector, calculate the
>>>>>>>>> magnitude and angle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was also very useful to get kids interested in programming since, as
>>>>>>>> you pointed out, other forms of programming were harder to implement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you missed the part where I said "in this day and age".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What other language would you think suitable to teach to young kids
>>>>>> these days? They require almost instant gratification to remain
>>>>>> interested in anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kids these days are also NOT into command lines, so any language
>>>>> where it is easy to display a window or a web page, and there are
>>>>> lots of them.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not aware of any that are as easy as Basic to learn and use almost
>>>> immediately to hold their interest.
>>>
>>> If you limit yourself the the capabilities of BASIC, then almost any
>>> language would do.
>>>
>>> Likely the simplest is command line PHP or Perl if all you want to do
>>> is simple calculations, but both have orders of magnitude more capabilities
>>> than BASIC.
>>>
>>> The primary reason BASIC is so easy to learn is that BASIC has very
>>> little in the way of capabilities. Once you want to do more, i.e.
>>> graphics, web pages, interprocess communications, database access,
>>> you have to switch to a more usefull language.
>>>
>>> Just because a language has advanced features (compared to BASIC) does
>>> not mean you have to start off using those features.
>>
>> I can see that it's not likely I'll ever get you to agree with my
>> opinion regarding the efficacy of using Basic to introduce kids to
>> computers and programming so I'll stop wasting both of our times. I feel
>> that Basic's simplicity and immediacy of results is exactly why it works
>> well for this situation, you do not. Let's leave it there for now.
>
> Nope, as quite frankly, your position is ridiculous.
>
> If you restrict capabilities to those of BASIC, many other languages
> are just as easy to learn and there are many that are interpreted for
> "immediacy of results".

I simply don't agree and since the facts are fairly subjective see no 
reason to continue this fruitless discussion. Despite your dictum 
regarding my opinion I still think Basic is a great introductory 
language for kids, you do not. We could argue for infinity and still 
reach no consensus so I'm going to leave it there and devote my time to 
something more productive. You, of course, may carry on as you wish.

-- 
dvus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#533827

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-11-17 20:22 +0000
Message-ID<oseshc-rs1.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#533745
dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:

>> If you restrict capabilities to those of BASIC, many other languages
>> are just as easy to learn and there are many that are interpreted for
>> "immediacy of results".
> 
> I simply don't agree and since the facts are fairly subjective see no 
> reason to continue this fruitless discussion. Despite your dictum 
> regarding my opinion I still think Basic is a great introductory 
> language for kids, you do not. We could argue for infinity and still 
> reach no consensus so I'm going to leave it there and devote my time to 
> something more productive. You, of course, may carry on as you wish.
 
What is so special about BASIC that makes it easy to learn?

It is interpreted: there are lots of interpreted languages.

It has only integer variable types: many other languages allow undeclared
data types.

It has one or two letter variable names: many other languages allow one
or two letter variable names.

It has little functionality other than basic math and string operations; you
can restrict yourself to basic math and string operations in any language.

It has only console IO; you can restrict yourself to only console IO in
any language.

OK, what do you think is so special about BASIC that makes it easy
to learn that can not be done in any other interpreted language if
you initially limit yourself to the capabilities of BASIC?



-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#533848

From"nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com>
Date2015-11-17 14:16 -0800
Message-ID<4d2fdc09-0fe5-4132-a0b5-260d4772a97c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#533119
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 1:31:05 PM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
> > On 11/13/2015 8:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >>> On 11/13/2015 2:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/12/2015 2:10 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 11/11/2015 11:22 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Prior to the introduction of Windows 7, the files Qbasic.exe and
> >>>>>>>>> Qbasic.hlp were included in the self extracting zip file, olddos.exe,
> >>>>>>>>> which was available as a free download from Microsoft. It's no longer
> >>>>>>>>> available.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Early in 2013 I asked this question of the Microsoft Community; "How do I
> >>>>>>>>> obtain permission to store a copy of Qbasic on my web pages that can be
> >>>>>>>>> downloaded by anyone wishing to do so? Permission is all I require."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I've stored the necessary info for downloading Qbasic at this address.
> >>>>>>>>> http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/qbastest.html
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If Qbasic was installed in every computer on earth, it would be one of
> >>>>>>>>> the greatest communication tools emerging from the 20th century. There's
> >>>>>>>>> nothing else in the world that compares in this field. The problem now is
> >>>>>>>>> that XP is the latest Windows version that will properly run the software
> >>>>>>>>> and most folk have progressed beyond that.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I would guess 99% of people have zero interest in programming Basic
> >>>>>>>> to do anything.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm finally one of the "1%" I keep hearing about!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> One wonders why anyone in this day and age would be using BASIC for
> >>>>>> anything given it's lack of usefull I/O and lack interprocess
> >>>>>> communications of any kind.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, to start with, it's fun. There can be little doubt that other
> >>>>> languages are much more useful for practical purposes, but Basic offers
> >>>>> a simple introduction to the "basics" of program writing. Serious
> >>>>> programmers must, of course, move on to more serious languages.
> >>>>
> >>>> You do know BASIC is an acronym for Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic
> >>>> Instruction Code and was invented as a simple language to be used to
> >>>> teach beginning programming?
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that's kinda what I said above.
> >>>
> >>>> The only reason anyone ever used BASIC for non-educational tasks was
> >>>> BASIC was simple and free while FORTRAN compilers were scarce and very
> >>>> expensive.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, again, that's what I said.
> >>>
> >>>> One of the things BASIC was very usefull for was doing calculations
> >>>> that were tedious manually or with a slide rule that today are trivial
> >>>> with a $10 calculator, e.g. given X and Y of a vector, calculate the
> >>>> magnitude and angle.
> >>>
> >>> It was also very useful to get kids interested in programming since, as
> >>> you pointed out, other forms of programming were harder to implement.
> >>
> >> I think you missed the part where I said "in this day and age".
> > 
> > What other language would you think suitable to teach to young kids 
> > these days? They require almost instant gratification to remain 
> > interested in anything.
> 
> Kids these days are also NOT into command lines

  Well, if you told them that commands were like tweets...

>so any language where it is easy to display a window or a web page

  Yeah. Sigh.


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#538944

Fromgilber34 <fafa@invalid.com>
Date2015-12-13 16:11 -0600
Message-ID<n4kqdv$o17$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to#532911
On 11/13/2015 6:38 PM, dvus wrote:

>
>> The only reason anyone ever used BASIC for non-educational tasks was
>> BASIC was simple and free while FORTRAN compilers were scarce and very
>> expensive.
>
> Yes, again, that's what I said.

BASIC was/is fast and easy.
It does not need to be compiled like FORTRAN

And there are lots of reasons why people use BASIC back then. It was 
used in industry quite a bit.

>
>> One of the things BASIC was very usefull for was doing calculations
>> that were tedious manually or with a slide rule that today are trivial
>> with a $10 calculator, e.g. given X and Y of a vector, calculate the
>> magnitude and angle.

BASIC is also good at array calculations, indexing

>
> It was also very useful to get kids interested in programming since, as
> you pointed out, other forms of programming were harder to implement.

try Forth programming language.

Free Compliers here;

http://www.thefreecountry.com/compilers/forth.shtml
Related Pages

      Free Modula-2 Compilers
     Free Educational Programming Languages - Teach Kids Programming
     Free COBOL Compilers
     Free Java Compilers
     Free Prolog Compilers
     Free Fortran Compilers
     Free C/C++ Compilers

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#532311

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2015-11-12 08:43 -0600
Message-ID<Ye2dnemJ5rgaONnLnZ2dnUU7-I2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#532266
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?

   Anybody that wants to download can do so here:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickbasic/

   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.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#532332

Fromgilber34 <fafa@invalid.com>
Date2015-11-12 11:06 -0600
Message-ID<n22gv1$qe5$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to#532311
On 11/12/2015 8:43 AM, 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?
>
>    Anybody that wants to download can do so here:
>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickbasic/
>
>    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.
>

FORTRAN, with its lovely eight digit precision.

         is PHP compiled ?

and BASIC, with its lovely I/O with anything.

take BASIC + PC and you get  = Unknown/undefined PC interupts


anyhow WIN XP is obsolete now, and WIN 7 soon will be, so IAW Microsoft, 
it is no further use to Microsnot, there free for all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


Page 1 of 9  [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics


csiph-web