Hi,
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Ralf A. Quint <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 09:06 PM 7/27/2011, Rugxulo wrote:
>
>>I've seen some strange hacks, but .BAT is far from ideal for normal
>>computations.
>
> It's not supposed to do "computations", it's for file scripting. Do
> due with what's available...
I know, but I've always expected every OS to come with some minimal
programming / scripting, but they don't usually.
> Yeah, it's easy for people to jump on a bandwagon when they hear/read
> "over and over" things like this.
They're worse re: OOP, i.e. "must use it for everything!!"
> But I am sure that not even a small
> percentage of those folks that keep repeating that stuff never
> actually used it (or even tried).
It's not flavor of the month or Linux / Win / Mac doesn't support it,
so they don't care.
> I have seen more "spaghetti code" in C/C++/Java/C#/Ruby/Python/etc
> than I have ever seen in BASIC. It's not the programming language
> that's used that is the problem, it's the programmer that doesn't
> know how to use it (properly)...
They all have uses, I guess, but most of them aren't as "readable" as
they think! At least, I always wonder how anybody can brag about how
less obfuscated they are vs. others. At times they all get kinda
hairy.
My only real complaint against BASIC is that there are too many
incompatible dialects, but all languages suffer from that (though
perhaps less than BASIC for whatever reason).
> Have been using DOS since January '82, when we got at a former
> employer an IBM-PC on loan for 4 weeks from Computerland in Bonn. Was
> running a modified PC DOS 1.01 to support the 10MB harddrive from
> Corvus, with a whooping 256KB RAM.
> Later that year, after we had to give the IBM back, we got one of the
> first Sirus-1, a luxury model compared to the IBM, with 1.2MB floppy
> drives, 896KB of RAM and 800x400 "highres" (mono) graphics. That one
> had already MS-DOS 1.25. And before we had to give that one back, we
> got (as HP software OEM) a prototype of the HP-150, running what was
> becoming MS-DOS 2.01, 640KB RAM and 2x720KB 3.5" floppy drives. But
> at that time, we preferred the HP-9816, a non-DOS 68000 based
> "workstation", running HP ("Rocky Mountain")BASIC in ROM or UCSD
> Pascal/FORTRAN from the same 9121 floppy drives from the HP-150, or
> even the HP-85/86, also programmed/running in HP BASIC, all with line
> numbers, still nice structured programs... ;-)
I wish more developers would use "old" machines so that they would
understand and appreciate them more. At least then maybe their stuff
wouldn't become as slow and bloated. Seriously, if you don't test on
old machines, you tend to forget your limitations. There's really no
good reason for a compiler to need 120 MB of RAM just to optimize a
single C++ file. Or perhaps there should be a way to tell it to only
use xyz MB of RAM. Well, these days it's kinda a lost cause, AMD64
makes people think RAM is unlimited. Sometimes limits are "good", they
force you to think harder!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Got Input? Slashdot Needs You.
Take our quick survey online. Come on, we don't ask for help often.
Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
