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 ?!
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.
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.
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
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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree, as long as it's with a good macro-assembler
Way ahead of ya! Let me see, what's it called now, ah yes, PropBASIC.
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.)
vangbe
Posts: 21
Comments
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
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
BASIC isn't going away but as Heater once pointed out, it bears very little resemblance to what people remember BASIC to be.
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
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
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.
Beauty
And
Simplicity
In
Coding
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... ;-)
I agree, as long as it's with a good macro-assembler
Way ahead of ya! Let me see, what's it called now, ah yes, PropBASIC.
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!
Good point. Must give it a try next time I need to use PASM.
I swear I can sense Heater, cooking-up a comeback acronym....
?!? 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.
Turns out one can't do anything interesting with "BASIC".
A
Success
Ignore
C
BASIC
Always
Shuns
Intelligent
Coders
-Phil
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.
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.
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.
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.)