home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.lang.pop:80 alt.lang.basic:884
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!strath-cs!prlhp1!pitchers
- From: pitchers@prlhp1.prl.philips.co.uk (Steve Pitchers)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.pop,alt.lang.basic
- Subject: Re: Ok, so pop *pop* may be a valid lang, but where's basic?
- Message-ID: <1767@prlhp1.prl.philips.co.uk>
- Date: 20 Nov 92 11:14:52 GMT
- References: <1992Nov12.163410.12678@julian.uwo.ca> <1992Nov13.003414.17585@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <BxoIzG.H94@access.digex.com> <1992Nov16.023350.96536@slate.mines.colorado.edu>
- Reply-To: pitchers@prlhp1.UUCP (Steve Pitchers)
- Organization: Philips Research Laboratories, Redhill, UK
- Lines: 23
-
- Come on, everybody, let's let this drop!
-
- Whether Pop deserves a place in the comp.lang heirarchy has absolutely
- nothing to do with whether BASIC deserves a place.
-
- The comp.long.pop group is perfectly legit after having been through the
- correct procedures (as far as I am aware). Let's not get into a "Pop/BASIC
- is best" competition. If you want a comp.lang.basic group then let's have
- a proper vote on it -- leave comp.lang.pop alone!
-
- Steve --- pitchers@prl.philips.co.uk
- ~~~
-
- PS: For the record, I used to spend many happy hours programming in
- various forms of BASIC. What I most liked about it was that it was so
- easy to write complex software in very short timescales. I still remain
- a fan of BASIC, even though I never use it anymore.
-
- When I discovered Pop11, I immediately realised that Pop is even better
- for fast prototyping than BASIC is IMHO. I was also surprised to find
- that the variety of structured techniques easily available to you easily
- outstrips any other language that I have come into contact with. The
- legitimacy of Pop11 is beyond doubt!
-