AmigaActive (118/1728)

From:Peter Gordon
Date:3 Jun 2001 at 14:52:37
Subject:Re: slightly ot - re: blitz basic

Hi , on the subject of [amigactive] Re: slightly ot - re: blitz basic, you
said:

>> Perhaps a whole new BASIC implementation would be a better idea... Blitz
>> (on the amiga at least) is buggy, quirky, inconsistant, generates awful
>> code (so its best to use as much assembler as possible), ...

> It's not the language itself thats buggy, it's the 3rd party libraries. Just
> the same as if you were using bugged shared libs. Would you blame that on
> your assembler? Awful code, probably. It's slow because there was never an

I agree to a certain extent, but a plain Blitz Basic install is still quirky,
buggy, and inconsistant. The object system that has been grafted onto basic
is just awful, to name just one thing. The editor (even SuperTED) is also
dire.

BASIC is a terrible language invented to teach students how to write a simple
language interpreter, and Blitz is a pretty bad implementation of it.
Beginner programmers would be much better off with a decent Pascal. Its
easier to learn than C, not much more difficult than basic, and it teaches a
structured approach to programming.

> From all accounts, BlitzPC is supposed to be really good, although I've
> never
> tried it myself. I think Mark Sibly was considering a Linux port after
> finishing the Windows version.

Well, its probably a totally different implementation of Basic, and if Mark is
at all sensible, it would address a lot of the issues with the Amiga version.



Peter Gordon
http://www.c0mmodore.com
http://mrtickle.darkage.it
http://scene.darkage.it

Strange Facts #17:
Starfish don't have brains.

Quote carefully and read all ADMIN:README mails

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/