Is there a good BASIC compiler for ubuntu?

[Michael T. Richter]

On Sun, 2006-12-03 at 18:52 -0600, Kipton Moravec wrote:

> I have been programming longer than most of you have been alive.  I have
> programmed in over 15 different languages since 1975, and currently
> program most of my stuff in C or assembler.


You don't want to be going down that path, son.  "C" and "Assembler"
don't impress.  (My first question should you want to continue this line
is "which assembler?"....)



> Different languages have different advantages. When someone says "their
> favorite language" is the "best" I know they are probably not well
> informed.  


Agreed.  Isn't it lucky I didn't say anything of the sort?


> Different languages have different strengths.  Basic is
> better than C for example in string manipulation. 


Agreed.  But a whole whack-o-languages are better than BASIC (note:
BASIC is an acronym....) at pretty much everything -- including string
manipulation.  Python happens to be one of those, for example.  You'd be
hard-pressed to find things that you can easily do in BASIC that you
can't do at least as easily in Python (if not more easily), but the
reverse is not true.  Ruby, from what little I know at this stage, is
about the same in this regard.


> 955 files came up.  First thing I noticed was there was some stuff
> labeled python 2.3 and python 2.4 already installed on my computer.  For
> me that raises some red flags, because in most languages it is not a
> good idea to have two versions going at the same time. Or to use 2.3
> libraries with 2.4 language or vice-versa.


You'd hate my system.  I've got like five versions of GCC, G++, et al.
And several versions of Python.  Oddly, this never really caused me a
problem.


> So the first question before I even get started is why do I have both
> 2.3 and 2.4 installed on my computer, and which one should I use?  Is
> that not confusing?


You could type "python" and just use the default, right?


> That is a problem with most Unix programming environments. Beginner
> documentation is scarce. The versions change so much that it is hard to
> keep up with it unless you program in it every day or every week.


Yes.  Python's just been running amuck with versions.  I mean it's been
around for only three weeks and has already gone through two major
versions and four minor versions, hasn't it.

(Imagine that eye-rolling icon again.)


> > Which dialect of BASIC?  On which platform?  There is no "BASIC" so
> > much as there is a certain dialect of BASIC on a certain architecture
> > with vague similarities from one instance to another.  Compare and
> > contrast this with, say, Python (or Ruby or Lua or ...) where it's
> > pretty much the identical language (and even a mostly-identical
> > programming environment) from platform to platform.  



> You exaggerate the differences for variants of Basic.  Of course your
> example is GW Basic which is Microsoft's version.  Microsoft does a good
> job of not following any standards. Look at the trouble with Microsoft
> Java, and Front page extensions.


Microsoft is pretty much the last bastion of BASIC use.  So if you
remove the single most dominant example of BASIC from consideration,
yes, BASIC looks just sufficiently similar from version to version that
you can get royally screwed by mistaken assumptions.

Of course removing the single largest user base of BASIC from the mix is
what we would tend to call a "straw man" now, isn't it?


> > >  I've only ever seen Linux geeks extolling the virtues of Python.



> > Your blindness is largely meaningless to this discussion.



> That comment is not helpful for the discussion either Michael.


It's a perfect response to a "only Linux geeks use Python" comment.
Especially funny considering that I've been accused of being a "Windows
lover" in this very list for ripping on Linux's real failings.  (Hint:
Python isn't one of them.)

--
Michael T. Richter
Email: ttmrichter at gmail.com, mtr1966 at hotpop.com
MSN: ttmrichter at hotmail.com, mtr1966 at hotmail.com; YIM:
michael_richter_1966; AIM: YanJiahua1966; ICQ: 241960658; Jabber:
mtr1966 at jabber.cn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20060313/ce60ff5c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20060313/ce60ff5c/attachment.sig>