|
echinopsis posted:Despite Dijkstra's famous judgement in 1975, "It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration",[11] BASIC was one of the few languages that was both high-level enough to be usable by those without training and small enough to fit into the microcomputers of the day, making it the de facto standard programming language on early microcomputers. Dijkstra was a fack-idiot (I didn't find an English translation for fakki-idiootti so I lent you the word, no need to thank me) who cared more about an aspect of ADP (automatic data processing) that literally doesn't matter, i.e. "good programming" and poo poo on the only important aspect, i.e. the ability to produce working and useful software quickly and easily. He sucks and is a big doodiehead. BASIC is extremely good and cool and great and has allowed me to actually do useful things with computer.
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2019 12:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:34 |
|
|
Not saying other programming languages are bad, except literally all object-oriented languages as they, unlike BASIC, result in human-unreadable code. COBOL is good for what it does. So is assembly code as it is linguistically exactly the same as BASIC proper. e: Well I guess it's actually the other way around, obviously.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2019 12:26
|
|
|
Dijkstra's problem was that he was coming from a soft science point of view trying to "solve" a non-problem in a hard science, i.e. linguistics.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2019 00:00
|
|