Subj : Re: Is BASIC to be regarded as less than reputable prog lang?
To   : Malvinas
From : tenser
Date : Sun Jul 14 2024 04:21:40

On 11 Jul 2024 at 02:12p, Malvinas pondered and said...
 
 Ma>  te> I agree that one can learn a lot from different languages,
 Ma>  te> but honestly this sort of use-case feels like exactly the sort
 Ma>  te> of thing that logo would be better at than BASIC.
 Ma>  te> 
 Ma> 
 Ma> Yea, you're probably right, but the thing is, once you accomplish
 Ma> something like a Battleship game, you don't just get a Battleship game,
 Ma> you also know a lot of BASIC, which enables you to go on and try
 Ma> anything else *on BASIC*... whereas LOGO wouldn't let you get too far
 Ma> from "a Battleship game"....

Not true!  LOGO is actually a dialect of Lisp, and as such,
it's incredibly powerful.  People can, and have, written very
robust, complex programs in LOGO; in many ways, it is superior
to BASIC as a programming language (saner rules around scoping
and expressions, for instance).

Unfortunately, few people _learned_ LOGO as a Lisp; most never
got beyond drawing a few basic shapes with the turtle.  For
those who did, many could not wrap their heads around functional-
style programming.

More's the pity: it's actually a very nice language.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
 * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

.