Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gumby.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!uwvax!gumby!tainter From: tainter@gumby.UUCP Newsgroups: net.lang Subject: Re: (qualityp BASIC) -> NIL Message-ID: <329@gumby.UUCP> Date: Fri, 8-Mar-85 23:46:26 EST Article-I.D.: gumby.329 Posted: Fri Mar 8 23:46:26 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 11-Mar-85 06:46:09 EST References: <7873@brl-tgr.ARPA> <706@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> <467@houxj.UUCP> <733@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> <166@dmsd.UUCP> Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept Lines: 22 > Mikes snobery is totally out of line ... he totally ignored the argments > presented by others and then presents guidelines outside reality. > YES, you should use the RIGHT tool for the job, GIVEN A PARTICULAR > HOST FOR THE JOB. > John Bass > DMS Design (System Performance and Arch Consultants) The point of questioning BASIC or any other language is to decide what languages should be put on new machines. Most importantly what languages should get ROMed into new machines (if one must be, which I question). You may think it presumptuous of US to be deciding what should go into new machines since its the manufacturer's decision, but industry looks to the experts (US **) for these decisions and if we keep LETTING BASIC be the default language to install then the power of other languages is going to remain an after thought and bare a corresponding added cost. -- Johnathan A. Tainter (@ U of Wisconsin -- Madison) ** I don't want this to sound egotistical. The users of this net, particularly the participants in this news group, are a much better informed and involved group than most of the computer industry. This is the US I refer to.