Re: [stella] OT: Programming, CS theory

Subject: Re: [stella] OT: Programming, CS theory
From: Erik Mooney <erik@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 01:13:53 -0400
>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
Unsub & more at

Current Thread