> DN> I also object to your use of the word "arbitrary".
And of course it is
 > DN> under review - all standards are, as a matter of course. They simply

 > Object all you like, the standard is nevertheless
 > arbitrary, if it wasn't there would never be a need
 > to review it.

Well, if you put it that way, anything that can only be described by
abstract concepts is necessarily arbitrary except, perhaps, mathematics.

No, it isn't "abitrary" because it has the backing of an industry
and a standards council. It is far less "arbitrary" than it is
"agreed upon".

I seem to pretty much agree with most of what you said following this, so
there's no point in replying to it. :)


 >     I had never before come across a programmer who wouldn't simply have
 > accepted my statement as an axiom. Now, in one week, I've come across two.
 > I can only assume you are getting the language and the hardware mixed up.

Nope. I've used many forms of BASIC, and compatibility between any two is a
highly variable issue - at the *language* level. Perhaps you can write an
auto-converter from one form or another, but this admits the
non-portability, not the opposite.

 > of any other language. Basic was designed to teach principles, not write
 > applications. The fact that some applications *have* been
 > written with it is a tribute to the programmers responsible.

Unfortunately, BASIC doesn't teach programming principles very well. It is,
however, an easy programming language to learn, which makes it even easier
to teach. It allows a novice programmer to do things, certainly, but
usually with total disregard for sound programming practices.

 > As of this packet I'll be detagging this area (nothing to
 > do with this thread), so any arguments, comments, insults, etc.
 > addressed to me here won't be read by me, although others may
 > find them amusing.

:-)

--- MaltEd/2 1.0.b6