>I have a CS degree, and I have found a great deal of difference between what
>works "in theory", and what works in practice:
I too have a CS degree and many years of hobbyist programming, and I'll
vouch for everything on this list. Especially the BASIC one. I learned
programming on TI-99 BASIC and then GW-BASIC, and currently make a living
programming Visual Basic. But I work fluently in assembler and picked up
2600 programming real quick, with a playable version of INV within a
couple weeks of joining the list.
And your last argument. The one thing BASIC has done to me is make me
unable to program in C++ without constantly tripping over the syntax. I
can't logically follow the trails of braces and ampersands and the "maybe
it'll work if I put the asterisk _here_" factor. No matter what style of
indenting and braces you use, I'll never follow it as closely as I can IF,
THEN, END IF. FOR/NEXT is much more intuitive than for (;;) {} .
I should write a syntactic-sugar set of compiler defines to make C++ read
like Basic... Unless it's already been done out there somewhere?
-
Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsub & more at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/
