5 Computer Lanuage similar to PBasic

What 5 Computer Language is best similar to Pbasic and easiest to learn?
«13

Comments

  • 78 Comments sorted by Date Added Votes
  • Certainly a curious question. Why do you ask? Many versions of BASIC are similar.
    "When you make a thing, a thing that is new, it is so complicated making it that it is bound to be ugly. But those that make it after you, they don’t have to worry about making it. And they can make it pretty, and so everybody can like it when others make it after you."

    - Pablo Picasso
  • vangbe wrote: »
    What 5 Computer Language is best similar to Pbasic and easiest to learn?
    Hopelessly open ended question - you have not even stated what platform(s) you want to target with these 5 languages, and what you expect to actually do ?!

  • Any platforms..
    Could be for microcontrollers or regular computer programming (like Visual Basic).

    I was just curious because I want to look into them.
    What many versions of Basics are similar? j/w
  • All versions of BASIC are similar.

    And they are different enough to be incompatible. Code written in one will not run on another.

  • Heater. wrote: »
    All versions of BASIC are similar.

    And they are different enough to be incompatible. Code written in one will not run on another.

    IOW, the worst of both worlds. Familiar enough to make us feel comfortable and different enough to trip us up :innocent:
    In science there is no authority. There is only experiment.
    Life is unpredictable. Eat dessert first.
  • Dave HeinDave Hein Posts: 5,309
    edited September 2016 Vote Up0Vote Down
    Within the Parallax world PropBASIC for the Propeller and SX/B for the SX are two languages that are very similar to PBASIC. Both languages were developed by Terry Hitt (AKA Bean).
  • To actually address the question; if you are familiar with any of the modern structured BASICs, then learning any other modern language (except Forth) is pretty much a Monday-Tuesday problem. I have just never had a need to use anything but BASIC.

    BASIC isn't going away but as Heater once pointed out, it bears very little resemblance to what people remember BASIC to be.



    PropBASIC ROCKS!
  • Not so fast.

    BASIC is one thing. Getting to grips with everything in C++ is nigh on impossible. I know of one case of a CS prof who wrote a comment that "bla bla feature of Ada was absurd" in some of his tutorial code. Looking at at it I realized he did not understand how Ada worked! Javascript, despite it's initial simplicity has features advanced enough that it will take at least until next Tuesday to get your head around it :)

    The bigger problem is getting familiar with the gigantic libraries that come with Java or whatever.

    Yeah, most modern BASICs should not even bear the name, they are so far removed from original BASIC.

    Me, I like to use languages that have internationally recognized standards and support from multiple vendors. Then your code has some chance of portability and a long life.

    I make an exception for Spin though :)


  • Ah, I didn't see the OP's "any platform" response.

    For my BASIC needs:

    DOS:
    PDS 7.1 (QB 4.5); amazing development environment for its day.

    PowerBASIC: has code pointers that are lacking in QB.

    Windows:
    VB; great for RAD but I prefer PowerBASIC's ability to create tiny executables with no dependencies.

    FreeBASIC would be a consideration, today, as it covers DOS, Windows, Linux and RPi.

    Propeller microcontroller; PropBASIC for its speed and ease of use.

    Android:
    For on-device rapid development, usually for testing; RFOBASIC. Great little interpreter. I just read that they are now able to create an APK right on the device.
    I use this mainly for testing Bluetooth and WiFi code.

    For permanent Android apps, I use B4A (BASIC for Android). This is like VB for Android....much friendlier than Eclipse+Java
    PropBASIC ROCKS!
  • Mickster,

    I see you're a fan of Basic. Do you think it's simply better than C, or is it just because you happen to have a lot of background in Basic?

    Right now I'm thinking we (someone) should 'invent' a new language that's really just Basic in disguise. Just some new terminology and gizmos to seem different. It'll be the new popular language and all the kids will want to learn it.

    Python is depopularizing braces, now we just have to get rid of the forced 'structured' aspect.
    I am the Master, and technology my slave.
  • Great idea. Let's get back to assembler.
  • Heater. wrote: »
    Great idea. Let's get back to assembler.
    I hate assembler. It takes too much control away from the programmer. It assigns addresses itself so you can't control exactly where anything goes and gives silly names to what are actually numeric addresses. Let's take back total control and go back to binary!

  • I'm thinking that FreeBASIC is pretty much there; cross-platform, open source, etc.....Just change the acronym:

    Beauty
    And
    Simplicity
    In
    Coding

    PropBASIC ROCKS!
  • David Betz wrote: »
    I hate assembler. It takes too much control away from the programmer. It assigns addresses itself so you can't control exactly where anything goes and gives silly names to what are actually numeric addresses. Let's take back total control and go back to binary!
    \o/ ____( Back to the roots! )

    Yeah! Not so many confusing keys, a display you fully could read in fractions of a second and the system software was in 1.5k spread over 3 ROMs if I remember it correctly...

    Sure I won't mention NIBL now... ;-)
    Windows.
    No Source – No Go!
    Please help: http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Category:Spin
    Why Asimov's Laws of Robotics Don't Work - Computerphile
    DNA is a four letter word.
  • Heater. wrote: »
    Great idea. Let's get back to assembler.

    I agree, as long as it's with a good macro-assembler :innocent:
    In science there is no authority. There is only experiment.
    Life is unpredictable. Eat dessert first.
  • kwinn wrote: »
    Heater. wrote: »
    Great idea. Let's get back to assembler.

    I agree, as long as it's with a good macro-assembler :innocent:

    Way ahead of ya! Let me see, what's it called now, ah yes, PropBASIC. :D
    PropBASIC ROCKS!
  • Mickster wrote: »
    I'm thinking that FreeBASIC is pretty much there; cross-platform, open source, etc.....Just change the acronym:

    Beauty
    And
    Simplicity
    In
    Coding

    Careful there, you are giving us ideas, it got me thinking "basic" but "free" instead :)

    Re assembler - I would love to see a macro-assembler for the Prop!
    Tachyon Forth - compact, fast, forthwright and interactive
    useforthlogo-s.png
    Tachyon Forth News Blog
    TACHYON DEMONSTRATOR
    Brisbane, Australia
  • Mickster wrote: »
    kwinn wrote: »
    Heater. wrote: »
    Great idea. Let's get back to assembler.

    I agree, as long as it's with a good macro-assembler :innocent:

    Way ahead of ya! Let me see, what's it called now, ah yes, PropBASIC. :D

    Good point. Must give it a try next time I need to use PASM.
    In science there is no authority. There is only experiment.
    Life is unpredictable. Eat dessert first.
  • Mickster wrote: »
    I'm thinking that FreeBASIC is pretty much there; cross-platform, open source, etc.....Just change the acronym:

    Beauty
    And
    Simplicity
    In
    Coding

    Careful there, you are giving us ideas, it got me thinking "basic" but "free" instead :)

    Re assembler - I would love to see a macro-assembler for the Prop!

    I swear I can sense Heater, cooking-up a comeback acronym.... :D :D :D
    PropBASIC ROCKS!
  • I would love to see a macro-assembler for the Prop!

    ?!? Propgcc (gas) has been here for awhile now. It astonishes me when I see people writing .s files when they could write .S files, which are preprocessed by gcc. This capability is why I don't use spin; C is just a freebie thrown in with propgcc.
  • Mickster,
    I swear I can sense Heater, cooking-up a comeback acronym....
    Funny you should say that...

    Turns out one can't do anything interesting with "BASIC".

    :)
  • Be
    A
    Success
    Ignore
    C
    PropBASIC ROCKS!
  • Mickster wrote: »
    Be
    A
    Success
    Ignore
    C
    Clever.

  • Grrr...

    BASIC
    Always
    Shuns
    Intelligent
    Coders

  • If we're going to talk about BASIC it would be nice to specify a particular implementation. Otherwise it is impossible to comment on its productivity as compared with another language. I'd like to challenge anyone to use PBASIC to implement a compiler for itself. You can certainly do that with C and probably with Visual BASIC. You will have a hard time with PBASIC. There are so many different dialects of BASIC that I guess there is probably some dialect for every imaginable problem domain but there is not a single universal dialect that can handle them all like C can.
  • David Betz wrote:
    I hate assembler. It takes too much control away from the programmer. It assigns addresses itself so you can't control exactly where anything goes and gives silly names to what are actually numeric addresses. Let's take back total control and go back to binary!
    Yes, but only if the program has to be loaded via toggle switches. :)

    -Phil
    “Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
  • PowerBASIC is an example of a compiler written in 100% PowerBASIC and it can give C a run for its money. In Windows, a "Hello World" results in a 15KB executable.

    Different dialects of BASIC, for me, is a non issue because it usually means that I'm on a different platform that presents its own compatibility issues. At the end of the day, I can read BASIC code. I just read the string issue with SPIN (different thread)....I understood nothing! String handling in BASIC is a non issue.

    PropBASIC ROCKS!
  • kwinnkwinn Posts: 7,643
    edited September 2016 Vote Up0Vote Down
    David Betz wrote: »
    If we're going to talk about BASIC it would be nice to specify a particular implementation. Otherwise it is impossible to comment on its productivity as compared with another language. I'd like to challenge anyone to use PBASIC to implement a compiler for itself. You can certainly do that with C and probably with Visual BASIC. You will have a hard time with PBASIC. There are so many different dialects of BASIC that I guess there is probably some dialect for every imaginable problem domain but there is not a single universal dialect that can handle them all like C can.

    Not a fair or reasonable comparison. C was initially designed to be a high level "assembly" language so it could be adapted to a variety of computer architectures and instruction sets. PBasic was designed as a high level language to make optimal use of the Propeller chip.
    In science there is no authority. There is only experiment.
    Life is unpredictable. Eat dessert first.
  • That's rather large isn't it?

    A "Hello World" program in C compiled on Windows 10 here is only 8K Bytes. And I'm wondering why that is orders of magnitude bigger than it need be.

    The problems come when one has hundreds of thousands of lines of code written by many people over a long time. And then one wants, or has, to move it to a different platform. Then a standardized language starts to look like a good idea.


  • Mickster wrote: »
    kwinn wrote: »
    Heater. wrote: »
    Great idea. Let's get back to assembler.

    I agree, as long as it's with a good macro-assembler :innocent:

    Way ahead of ya! Let me see, what's it called now, ah yes, PropBASIC. :D

    I think you mis-spelled "fastspin" :).

    (Seriously, fastspin does everything that PropBASIC does, but does it with Spin instead of BASIC. And getting back to the topic of this thread, Spin is actually not too different from BASIC -- it's an easy to learn and easy to use language.)
Sign In or Register to comment.