>On 09/21/00 12:05, Geoff Perlman, geoff@... wrote:
>
>>I guess it's a matter of whether you want to test typical things a user
>>might do or things that a user *can* do. Most Futurebasic programmers don't
>>use assembler and most REALbasic programmers don't write plug-ins.
>
> Geoff, You  ought to run for public office. The way you play "Mexican
>Hat Dance" with words & dodges .. You would really be a winner.. Even
>give "Slick" competition
>
>You keep referring to us "Typical FB Users" not using assembly .. Horse
>Hocky .. Male Bovine Droppings TOO .. We DON'T HAVE TO GO to assembly ..
>It comes to us .. IT IS IN FB AS A COMPONENT .. So .. Its AUTOMATICALLY
>FURNISHED .. We use it .. Not even aware that we are using it .. Its THAT
>FLUID
>

I gotta go with Geoff on this one.  BASIC is BASIC.  Just because you CAN
use another language (Assembler) doesn't mean that now assembler is BASIC.
Heck, if Staz, Andy, and their crew of 500 highly paid and highly talented
programmers would do it, I would like them to include FORTRAN, C, PL/I, and
maybe my all time favorite, COMIT (in COMIT I once wrote a program that
would input a phrase structure - Backus-Naur form - grammar and generate
random sentences in that grammar, all in 5 (thats right five) lines of
code.)  That would be great, but it wouldn't be Basic.  It would be BASIC
with augmentations.  The purists among us would even argue that anything
past the 7 original statements of BASIC is no longer BASIC.  Beginners All
purpose Symbolic Instruction Code means just that.  Try teaching
FutureBasic or REALbasic to a class in 1 hour.  With "real" BASIC it can be
done.

OK, I'll shut up, this whole thing is a little OT.

Bryan
---------------------
Bryan Bremner
Facilities Operations
bremner@...