> > Yes, at that point Basic became like Pascal.
> 
> Heh.  Even GWBasic (still with line numbers) was pretty far 
> beyond the types of BASIC that people sneered at.  I mean, it 
> had ELSE.  It had variables names beyond "Z9".  It had 
> integers and functiondefs.  I first learned programming using 
> a basic that didn't have ELSE.  Very painful.  (at least it 
> no longer required the LET keyword on assignments, IIRC.)


Z9 style variables, that was Apple as well, wasn't it?  

To compare Dartmouth BASIC with VB.Net is a bit of a stretch...  I wonder if
anyone ever used True Basic.  

Compared to the current languages, all old stuff sucks to a certain degree.
It's a bit like sneering at Fords because your great-grandpappy didn't like
the Model-T.  Like the previous 'VB sucks' poster whose problems were mainly
due to a lack of RTFM.

Tony

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist