That's the whole point of the flame wars over BASIC.
Friends don't let friends right large, complicated, or otherwise serious applications in BASIC. (Yeah, I'm talking about the range of about 50,000+ lines of code, which is about where you start bumping into the 5M barrier for data and code.)
Various forms of BASIC are, indeed, already available for Android.
Not so much for iOS, except for those who are registered developers, as I understand, but reading the posts to this point, there may even be ways around Apple on that.
parse a web page for more than one or two items of interest;
write a note tracker that will eventually be integrated into a document system;
write the back-end functions of a genetic analysis system;
build a time tracking system that I plan to ask people besides myself to use;
calculate pi beyond about the thirtieth place;...
Basically, any problem beyond the easy answers. You know, I'm talking about the easy answers that, at one time were hard to get to, but now are not, and are known to be very limited in their context of application.
MS has a shiny new VB for phones and wants everyone to say how wonderful it is and how it is again ahead of the wave (when it is in fact behind the wave on every platform but its own)?
Is there some fundamental difference between a PC browser's javascript and a phone browser's javascript? Or is there some threshold of code volume beyond which you have to have a connection?
I mean, it was some really simple code, but I have javascript code demonstrating the calculation of pi by hand that runs in an off-line browser. And I have a nice tool for demonstrating rot13 encryption to jr. high kids that runs nicely off-line.
We don't need more, we need less. Just one. Forth!
mmmmm lemmetry
we more need not we less need it one only is it Forth is!
or, maybe,
[me@fedora ~]$ gforth Gforth 0.7.0, Copyright (C) 1995-2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Gforth comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `license' Type `bye' to exit hex ok 7fffffff constant more ok 80000000 constant less ok decimal ok 4 constant need ok create we 12 allot ok more negate we need + ! ok less we need + need + ! ok 0 we need + need + ! ok ' 1 we need + ! :10: Undefined word ' >>>1<<< we need + ! Backtrace: $A9BD54 throw $A9BD78 (') ( erk ) ok 1 constant one ok ' one we need + ! ok ' Forth we need + ! ok ( I'm sure I could have thought of something more useful to say with that. )
Well, now I don't remember. Did the 6309 expand DP?
Anyway, I'd have started by expanded the index registers, to make it possible to directly address a reasonably wide pixel display buffer and such. (Per the 68HC16 or whatever that was/is.) Widened DP to make it possible to reasonably use it to base process local variables in a large process space. Added another index register (and kept the U) to ease direct execution of p-machine or Forth kinds of intermediate code. Stuff in that vein.
OS-9 is cool, but I kept running into walls, subconsciously expecting the full Unix functionality in the tools. Didn't have the sense to just go out and buy a PC to use developing tools for OS-9, kept trying to bootstrap the tools on the native arch.
Say, is there anywhere still making real (as opposed to gate array) 63/809s? I'd sure rather teach my kids microcontrollers on the 6809 than on the 8080.
But it was not the direction Motorola intended to take the 6809, and may have played a part in their decision to leave the 6809 and return to single-stack architecture in their embedded products.
OS-9/6809 was cool, too.
I spent (wasted?) a lot of time trying to build an OS/run-time that combined the position independence of OS-9 with a split stack parameter passing paradigm. The 6809 just didn't quite have enough resources for that. (And the 6309 took the design the wrong direction for that.)
Still fascinated by the design of the 6809, still not sure why.
Actually, in this case, the problem seems to be hijacked e-mail.
What I'm trying to understand now is why they need a copy of a license to start checking about undoing the transfer, when they don't require the copy of the license to initiate it.
Slashdot Mirror
This was the whole purpose of this story, right? To let MS pretend it's at the front of the pack again?
Talk about not following your own conversation, and not knowing the facts you are trying to invoke ...
That's the whole point of the flame wars over BASIC.
Friends don't let friends right large, complicated, or otherwise serious applications in BASIC. (Yeah, I'm talking about the range of about 50,000+ lines of code, which is about where you start bumping into the 5M barrier for data and code.)
If I want a calculator on a phone, I'll take bc or dc.
Or lisp, or forth, or ruby, or, ....
You do understand that the whole hypothesis is just false?
The carriers put some pressure on Apple to avoid letting users abuse the wireless network with automation.
At least, that was the excuse.
Not sure how Android is avoiding that.
Various forms of BASIC are, indeed, already available for Android.
Not so much for iOS, except for those who are registered developers, as I understand, but reading the posts to this point, there may even be ways around Apple on that.
Things I don't want to do in BASIC:
-- and for very good reason --
parse a web page for more than one or two items of interest;
write a note tracker that will eventually be integrated into a document system;
write the back-end functions of a genetic analysis system;
build a time tracking system that I plan to ask people besides myself to use;
calculate pi beyond about the thirtieth place; ...
Basically, any problem beyond the easy answers. You know, I'm talking about the easy answers that, at one time were hard to get to, but now are not, and are known to be very limited in their context of application.
People who haven't ever messed around at some level tend to not understand why there has to be any rules, and, yeah, all the rules seem arbitrary.
And why wouldn't they seem what they are? It's just that when you've never dug into formal languages, arbitrariness is not seen as useful.
Erg, new and confusing to the bulk of users, and no clear reason why one set of arbitrariness is better than another until they get in a ways.
And the ones who've done some mucking around with code, well, the rules they are used to are the ones they find familiar and simple.
The thing with BASIC is that it was/is designed as a calculator language, so that's what it works with most seamlessly -- simple calculator problems.
Not that I've used B4A or any of the others, but they are available.
That's why he's rich and I'm poor. I bought into his line of junk back then, thinking it would do what he said it would.
I don't want to talk about it, and I suppose I'll have to forgive him someday, but he has built up a lot of bad karma to match his fortune.
You got that one posted pretty high in the article, before anyone could point out the basic false assumptions in the story. It even looks natural.
Maybe you'll get a bonus ten-spot for that.
So, this poster is mad? Or lying?
MS has a shiny new VB for phones and wants everyone to say how wonderful it is and how it is again ahead of the wave (when it is in fact behind the wave on every platform but its own)?
That's the point of the story, right?
Shill.
Unfortunately, I've posted.
But this entire article is clearly a ready-made-for-MShills article.
Seriously.
I suppose you mean that Microsocks' shiny new BASIC is not the old MSBASIC or even VB, but I really smell a paid wave of shills.
Say what?
Is there some fundamental difference between a PC browser's javascript and a phone browser's javascript? Or is there some threshold of code volume beyond which you have to have a connection?
I mean, it was some really simple code, but I have javascript code demonstrating the calculation of pi by hand that runs in an off-line browser. And I have a nice tool for demonstrating rot13 encryption to jr. high kids that runs nicely off-line.
I smell a whole bunch of shills.
That's the point being missed here, corruption is both the result and the driving force behind politics.
(indulging a little compulsion ...)
Forth more we need NOT less we need just one
hmm
We don't need more, we need less. Just one. Forth!
mmmmm lemmetry
or, maybe,
Well, now I don't remember. Did the 6309 expand DP?
Anyway, I'd have started by expanded the index registers, to make it possible to directly address a reasonably wide pixel display buffer and such. (Per the 68HC16 or whatever that was/is.) Widened DP to make it possible to reasonably use it to base process local variables in a large process space. Added another index register (and kept the U) to ease direct execution of p-machine or Forth kinds of intermediate code. Stuff in that vein.
OS-9 is cool, but I kept running into walls, subconsciously expecting the full Unix functionality in the tools. Didn't have the sense to just go out and buy a PC to use developing tools for OS-9, kept trying to bootstrap the tools on the native arch.
Say, is there anywhere still making real (as opposed to gate array) 63/809s? I'd sure rather teach my kids microcontrollers on the 6809 than on the 8080.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't after you
That's definitely not something I'm going to argue with.
Wish I could afford to ship mine across the ocean. :-/
(Wish I had a place to keep it here. Not sure if my kids would appreciate it, though.)
Yeah, I thought the 6309 was cool, too.
But it was not the direction Motorola intended to take the 6809, and may have played a part in their decision to leave the 6809 and return to single-stack architecture in their embedded products.
OS-9/6809 was cool, too.
I spent (wasted?) a lot of time trying to build an OS/run-time that combined the position independence of OS-9 with a split stack parameter passing paradigm. The 6809 just didn't quite have enough resources for that. (And the 6309 took the design the wrong direction for that.)
Still fascinated by the design of the 6809, still not sure why.
Actually, in this case, the problem seems to be hijacked e-mail.
What I'm trying to understand now is why they need a copy of a license to start checking about undoing the transfer, when they don't require the copy of the license to initiate it.