In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, ringlord wrote: Ken-- Please pardon me in advance. BASIC for the Prop need not be any more like PBasic than SX/B is like PBasic. BASIC for the Prop just needs to be BASIC-like. There are so many versions of BASIC that it would be hard (impossible?) to count them. Yet, anyone familiar with BASIC can quickly pick up a new version of the language. SX/B introduced new features and lacked some features of PBasic, but it was dirt simple for a PBasic or a BASIC programmer to pick up. Prop-BASIC could be the same. There would be many statements that any BASIC programmer would recognize. There would be statements that PBasic programmers would recognize. And, there would be statements that one may have to learn due to the added capability of the Propeller. All that is necessary for these added statements is that they be BASIC-like. In my opinion, SX/B is not a [i]transistion[/i] from PBasic. SX/B is simply a language that has some PBasic similarity, but is really just another version of BASIC. Prop-Basic does not have to be a transition from PBasic. It just needs to be another version of BASIC that, like SX/B, has statements that take advantage of the microcontroller. I know I am beating a dead-horse, but the idea that several hundred (a few thousand?) Spin or Prop assembler programmers will provide Parallax with the vast market potential available if a Prop-Basic existed is simply ludicrous. I am very open to any fault in my reasoning and would welcome its exposure. If there is any reason Parallax wants to promote the Propeller sans BASIC, it must be some business reason that is none of my business. Respectully, --Bill ---------- End of Message ---------- You can view the post on-line at: http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=373927#m374149 Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2009 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)