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.