In defence of C (was:Re:Anybody else tried FreeBasic (aka fbc)?)

[D. Hugh Redelmeier]

| From: Walter Dnes <waltdnes-SLHPyeZ9y/tg9hUCZPvPmw at public.gmane.org>

|   The original mainframe-based BASICs, and MS's GWBASIC and QBASIC were
| interpreted byte-code, and accordingly slow.

Amazingly enough, the original BASIC (at Dartmouth College) was an
incremental compiler.  Each line was separately compiled, as it was
entered, to machine code!  I think that that is the reason for the odd
(crude) variable naming rules -- all variables existed (26 x 11
numeric variables were possible).

PS: I played with a later version of that BASIC implementation in
1967.  Mind you, I had no idea about compilers until perhaps year
later.  What I was impressed with was time sharing (using a Teletype
terminal).  Previously, I had mostly done batch computing with
turn-around measured in months.
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml