<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_10_0348241</id>
	<title>The Value of BASIC As a First Programming Language</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1268248860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:slashdot@miketaylor.org.uk" rel="nofollow">Mirk</a> writes <i>"Computer-science legend Edsger W. Dijkstra famously wrote: 'It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.' The Reinvigorated Programmer argues that the <a href="http://reprog.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/where-dijkstra-went-wrong-the-value-of-basic-as-a-first-programming-language/">world is full of excellent programmers who cut their teeth on BASIC</a>, and suggests it could even be <em>because</em> they started out with BASIC."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mirk writes " Computer-science legend Edsger W. Dijkstra famously wrote : 'It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC : as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration .
' The Reinvigorated Programmer argues that the world is full of excellent programmers who cut their teeth on BASIC , and suggests it could even be because they started out with BASIC .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mirk writes "Computer-science legend Edsger W. Dijkstra famously wrote: 'It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
' The Reinvigorated Programmer argues that the world is full of excellent programmers who cut their teeth on BASIC, and suggests it could even be because they started out with BASIC.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424138</id>
	<title>Yes and No</title>
	<author>gaelfx</author>
	<datestamp>1268215680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We can argue 'til we're blue in the face about what the best first language to learn is, but the simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter as much as we want it to. Even the second language we learn doesn't really matter that much. What matters is the <i>transition</i> from the first to the second language, assuming they're different enough to really consider the second language a different language (I would argue that going from C to C++ is not significant enough a change to be considered as a "second language"). If it goes smoothly, you've got a capable coder on your hands. If it takes more than a few tries to write "Hello World!" in the new language, chances are you have someone destined to be befuddled by any kind of more advanced programming methods. Granted, there are several factors that go into the significance of the transition, not the leas of which is time and depth spent coding in the first language, but those are issues are part of a much bigger pedagogical discussion than this. And no, I didn't RTFA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We can argue 'til we 're blue in the face about what the best first language to learn is , but the simple fact of the matter is that it does n't matter as much as we want it to .
Even the second language we learn does n't really matter that much .
What matters is the transition from the first to the second language , assuming they 're different enough to really consider the second language a different language ( I would argue that going from C to C + + is not significant enough a change to be considered as a " second language " ) .
If it goes smoothly , you 've got a capable coder on your hands .
If it takes more than a few tries to write " Hello World !
" in the new language , chances are you have someone destined to be befuddled by any kind of more advanced programming methods .
Granted , there are several factors that go into the significance of the transition , not the leas of which is time and depth spent coding in the first language , but those are issues are part of a much bigger pedagogical discussion than this .
And no , I did n't RTFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can argue 'til we're blue in the face about what the best first language to learn is, but the simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter as much as we want it to.
Even the second language we learn doesn't really matter that much.
What matters is the transition from the first to the second language, assuming they're different enough to really consider the second language a different language (I would argue that going from C to C++ is not significant enough a change to be considered as a "second language").
If it goes smoothly, you've got a capable coder on your hands.
If it takes more than a few tries to write "Hello World!
" in the new language, chances are you have someone destined to be befuddled by any kind of more advanced programming methods.
Granted, there are several factors that go into the significance of the transition, not the leas of which is time and depth spent coding in the first language, but those are issues are part of a much bigger pedagogical discussion than this.
And no, I didn't RTFA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424056</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is irrelevant</title>
	<author>Eraesr</author>
	<datestamp>1268214600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>At college we started off in Pascal but quickly moved on to C and a bit of Java. I'd say that if anyone is considering BASIC as a first language, they should choose Pascal instead. But to be completely honest, these days OO programming has become so important that it's probably better to start off in Java or C# from the start.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At college we started off in Pascal but quickly moved on to C and a bit of Java .
I 'd say that if anyone is considering BASIC as a first language , they should choose Pascal instead .
But to be completely honest , these days OO programming has become so important that it 's probably better to start off in Java or C # from the start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At college we started off in Pascal but quickly moved on to C and a bit of Java.
I'd say that if anyone is considering BASIC as a first language, they should choose Pascal instead.
But to be completely honest, these days OO programming has become so important that it's probably better to start off in Java or C# from the start.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428062</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>vtcodger</author>
	<datestamp>1268245140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>***GOTO is a good example, 'GOTO considered harmful' is practically biblical law amongst many programmers,***</p><p>It's well to remember that at the time Dijkstra wrote "GOTO Considered Harmful", he was working very hard on automated proof of correctness.  We've pretty much abandoned that for everyday code because we can't figure out how to do it.  If you can rigorously describe function, you don't need to test function, you need a compiler for the rigorous description.</p><p>Anyway, I have long thought that Dijkstra's point was mostly that if you allow programmers to transfer control any place they feel like going any time they feel like going there, you've made proof of correctness orders of magnitude harder.  And I think he was right about that.  Indeed, modern GUIs tend to go anyplace they feel like going any time the user twitches and testing GUIs is next to impossible -- which IMO is a large part of why they often work badly.</p><p>Thanks for the link -- hadn't read that paper before.  Clearly, it needs a lot of reading for any degree of understanding if you are as dumb as I am.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* * * GOTO is a good example , 'GOTO considered harmful ' is practically biblical law amongst many programmers , * * * It 's well to remember that at the time Dijkstra wrote " GOTO Considered Harmful " , he was working very hard on automated proof of correctness .
We 've pretty much abandoned that for everyday code because we ca n't figure out how to do it .
If you can rigorously describe function , you do n't need to test function , you need a compiler for the rigorous description.Anyway , I have long thought that Dijkstra 's point was mostly that if you allow programmers to transfer control any place they feel like going any time they feel like going there , you 've made proof of correctness orders of magnitude harder .
And I think he was right about that .
Indeed , modern GUIs tend to go anyplace they feel like going any time the user twitches and testing GUIs is next to impossible -- which IMO is a large part of why they often work badly.Thanks for the link -- had n't read that paper before .
Clearly , it needs a lot of reading for any degree of understanding if you are as dumb as I am .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>***GOTO is a good example, 'GOTO considered harmful' is practically biblical law amongst many programmers,***It's well to remember that at the time Dijkstra wrote "GOTO Considered Harmful", he was working very hard on automated proof of correctness.
We've pretty much abandoned that for everyday code because we can't figure out how to do it.
If you can rigorously describe function, you don't need to test function, you need a compiler for the rigorous description.Anyway, I have long thought that Dijkstra's point was mostly that if you allow programmers to transfer control any place they feel like going any time they feel like going there, you've made proof of correctness orders of magnitude harder.
And I think he was right about that.
Indeed, modern GUIs tend to go anyplace they feel like going any time the user twitches and testing GUIs is next to impossible -- which IMO is a large part of why they often work badly.Thanks for the link -- hadn't read that paper before.
Clearly, it needs a lot of reading for any degree of understanding if you are as dumb as I am.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423748</id>
	<title>Re:Funny argument</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1268253720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. I started on QBASIC, so I didn't have to cope with line numbers... but the code was still spaghetti. I remember the joy I felt upon discovering subroutines.</p><p>It's like a child burning themselves for the first time. Sometimes it's the best way to learn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
I started on QBASIC , so I did n't have to cope with line numbers... but the code was still spaghetti .
I remember the joy I felt upon discovering subroutines.It 's like a child burning themselves for the first time .
Sometimes it 's the best way to learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
I started on QBASIC, so I didn't have to cope with line numbers... but the code was still spaghetti.
I remember the joy I felt upon discovering subroutines.It's like a child burning themselves for the first time.
Sometimes it's the best way to learn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424030</id>
	<title>structures? pah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268214240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While there are no doubt some great programmers using structured languages, let us all not forget those great programmers who work with their own structures and only have global variables and labels are a luxury of the compiler , and where gosub is but a pipedream -- BASIC the training ground for assembly language maybe?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While there are no doubt some great programmers using structured languages , let us all not forget those great programmers who work with their own structures and only have global variables and labels are a luxury of the compiler , and where gosub is but a pipedream -- BASIC the training ground for assembly language maybe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While there are no doubt some great programmers using structured languages, let us all not forget those great programmers who work with their own structures and only have global variables and labels are a luxury of the compiler , and where gosub is but a pipedream -- BASIC the training ground for assembly language maybe?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424388</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is irrelevant</title>
	<author>awshidahak</author>
	<datestamp>1268220060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fundamentals of Programming CPTR-124  -- Southern Adventist University

That one uses C++.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fundamentals of Programming CPTR-124 -- Southern Adventist University That one uses C + + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fundamentals of Programming CPTR-124  -- Southern Adventist University

That one uses C++.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424158</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is irrelevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268215920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What intro-level courses use C or C++?</p></div><p>Florida State University -- COP3330, "Intro to Computer Programming". 100\% C++</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What intro-level courses use C or C + + ? Florida State University -- COP3330 , " Intro to Computer Programming " .
100 \ % C + +</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What intro-level courses use C or C++?Florida State University -- COP3330, "Intro to Computer Programming".
100\% C++
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650</id>
	<title>Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1268252760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A good programmer has experienced many languages and done things in many ways. A good programmer has compared all these various experiences and understands the advantages and disadvantages of each language and programming technique. A good programmer doesn't get bogged down in line numbers and GOTO statements and never move beyond that. If someone does get bogged down they never had the attitude to be a good programmer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A good programmer has experienced many languages and done things in many ways .
A good programmer has compared all these various experiences and understands the advantages and disadvantages of each language and programming technique .
A good programmer does n't get bogged down in line numbers and GOTO statements and never move beyond that .
If someone does get bogged down they never had the attitude to be a good programmer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good programmer has experienced many languages and done things in many ways.
A good programmer has compared all these various experiences and understands the advantages and disadvantages of each language and programming technique.
A good programmer doesn't get bogged down in line numbers and GOTO statements and never move beyond that.
If someone does get bogged down they never had the attitude to be a good programmer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426830</id>
	<title>Re:Appreciate the difference</title>
	<author>danlip</author>
	<datestamp>1268239680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I felt exactly the same way when I learned structured programming after starting with BASIC.  On the other hand, I've met some programmers whose thinking was damaged by BASIC, but I suspect they would never have been good programmers regardless of their starting language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I felt exactly the same way when I learned structured programming after starting with BASIC .
On the other hand , I 've met some programmers whose thinking was damaged by BASIC , but I suspect they would never have been good programmers regardless of their starting language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I felt exactly the same way when I learned structured programming after starting with BASIC.
On the other hand, I've met some programmers whose thinking was damaged by BASIC, but I suspect they would never have been good programmers regardless of their starting language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428232</id>
	<title>The world is full of excellent programmers ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268246100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> who cut their teeth on Basic, and Microsoft continues to hire them</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who cut their teeth on Basic , and Microsoft continues to hire them</tokentext>
<sentencetext> who cut their teeth on Basic, and Microsoft continues to hire them</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424270</id>
	<title>Re:Basic is, well, basic.</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1268217600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Learning out of a book in high school or college isn't obviously the same as hands-on building and programming."</i>
<br> <br>
It was 1964 and I had just started school when a teacher showed me how to light a torch bulb with a battery and a piece of wire, I felt like a caveman who had just been shown how to make fire! To imply that school is just book learning and no hands-on is just plain nonesense. OTOH, I totally agree with the rest of your post.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Learning out of a book in high school or college is n't obviously the same as hands-on building and programming .
" It was 1964 and I had just started school when a teacher showed me how to light a torch bulb with a battery and a piece of wire , I felt like a caveman who had just been shown how to make fire !
To imply that school is just book learning and no hands-on is just plain nonesense .
OTOH , I totally agree with the rest of your post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Learning out of a book in high school or college isn't obviously the same as hands-on building and programming.
"
 
It was 1964 and I had just started school when a teacher showed me how to light a torch bulb with a battery and a piece of wire, I felt like a caveman who had just been shown how to make fire!
To imply that school is just book learning and no hands-on is just plain nonesense.
OTOH, I totally agree with the rest of your post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423996</id>
	<title>The Language is Irrelevant</title>
	<author>Degro</author>
	<datestamp>1268213640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I found programming by learning Basic in a high-school programming class.  Anyone that was so affected by the first language they were introduced to had some preexisting conditions I'd say...  If a person only has the capacity to think in terms of the tool currently in their hands then forget about it.  I quickly moved on to C and Linux in my teens when Basic didn't support what I wanted to do and my empty wallet didn't support Borland or Visual Studio.  So yeah, thank you BASIC, public libraries and Linux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I found programming by learning Basic in a high-school programming class .
Anyone that was so affected by the first language they were introduced to had some preexisting conditions I 'd say... If a person only has the capacity to think in terms of the tool currently in their hands then forget about it .
I quickly moved on to C and Linux in my teens when Basic did n't support what I wanted to do and my empty wallet did n't support Borland or Visual Studio .
So yeah , thank you BASIC , public libraries and Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found programming by learning Basic in a high-school programming class.
Anyone that was so affected by the first language they were introduced to had some preexisting conditions I'd say...  If a person only has the capacity to think in terms of the tool currently in their hands then forget about it.
I quickly moved on to C and Linux in my teens when Basic didn't support what I wanted to do and my empty wallet didn't support Borland or Visual Studio.
So yeah, thank you BASIC, public libraries and Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423890</id>
	<title>Basic is, well, basic.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268212200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My son is currently at the age where he wants to start learning to program.  The thing is, other than Basic or similar entry-level languages, he just can't wrap his 11 year old mind around C++ or other more complex languages to start.  And I can't exactly drop him straight into SQL or Linux either.  He has to start somewhere, and simple languages fill this gap very well for the young.   It's also the same reason why I hope that they never stop making those ###-in-one electronic kits.  The basics may be old and useless to most of us here, but to our kids and grand-kids someday, it'll make the difference between being a good engineer or technical person versus just another brainless repairer who swaps parts without knowing why.</p><p>Learning out of a book in high school or college isn't obviously the same as hands-on building and programming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My son is currently at the age where he wants to start learning to program .
The thing is , other than Basic or similar entry-level languages , he just ca n't wrap his 11 year old mind around C + + or other more complex languages to start .
And I ca n't exactly drop him straight into SQL or Linux either .
He has to start somewhere , and simple languages fill this gap very well for the young .
It 's also the same reason why I hope that they never stop making those # # # -in-one electronic kits .
The basics may be old and useless to most of us here , but to our kids and grand-kids someday , it 'll make the difference between being a good engineer or technical person versus just another brainless repairer who swaps parts without knowing why.Learning out of a book in high school or college is n't obviously the same as hands-on building and programming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My son is currently at the age where he wants to start learning to program.
The thing is, other than Basic or similar entry-level languages, he just can't wrap his 11 year old mind around C++ or other more complex languages to start.
And I can't exactly drop him straight into SQL or Linux either.
He has to start somewhere, and simple languages fill this gap very well for the young.
It's also the same reason why I hope that they never stop making those ###-in-one electronic kits.
The basics may be old and useless to most of us here, but to our kids and grand-kids someday, it'll make the difference between being a good engineer or technical person versus just another brainless repairer who swaps parts without knowing why.Learning out of a book in high school or college isn't obviously the same as hands-on building and programming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423982</id>
	<title>Not Basic, but restrictions</title>
	<author>s-whs</author>
	<datestamp>1268213400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Reinvigorated Programmer argues that the world is full of excellent programmers who cut their teeth on BASIC, and suggests it could even be because they started out with BASIC."</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Bullshit. You know what may be a reason? The extreme restrictions. In the 80s I used a fairly good Basic, BBC Basic, but I mostly used 6502 assembler. This on a machine with very limited memory. What that does is cause you to do things as efficiently as possible, it makes you think how to best represent the data in memory etc. In german there's a saying: In der Beschraenkung zeigt sich der Meister" (which translates loosely to "given restrictions, the expert will show himself to be an expert") but I think even better would be "In der Beschraenkung bildet sich der Meister", i.e. given limitations you will become an expert at various problems.
<br> <br>
In literature there are similar situations. Limits of form/rhyme may instead of restrict a writer, actually make him write better material...
<br> <br>
But back to Basic: The limitations in there (the early 1980s and some later versions) are mostly not helping one to become an expert. They just annoy. What I clearly feel and which is what Dijkstra probably refers to (as it may be a strong effect in some programmers) is that I know how to do something directly, and thus the minimalist urge is there to write something different to using the features of the language you're using because for example you may think that would be less efficient.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Reinvigorated Programmer argues that the world is full of excellent programmers who cut their teeth on BASIC , and suggests it could even be because they started out with BASIC .
" Bullshit .
You know what may be a reason ?
The extreme restrictions .
In the 80s I used a fairly good Basic , BBC Basic , but I mostly used 6502 assembler .
This on a machine with very limited memory .
What that does is cause you to do things as efficiently as possible , it makes you think how to best represent the data in memory etc .
In german there 's a saying : In der Beschraenkung zeigt sich der Meister " ( which translates loosely to " given restrictions , the expert will show himself to be an expert " ) but I think even better would be " In der Beschraenkung bildet sich der Meister " , i.e .
given limitations you will become an expert at various problems .
In literature there are similar situations .
Limits of form/rhyme may instead of restrict a writer , actually make him write better material.. . But back to Basic : The limitations in there ( the early 1980s and some later versions ) are mostly not helping one to become an expert .
They just annoy .
What I clearly feel and which is what Dijkstra probably refers to ( as it may be a strong effect in some programmers ) is that I know how to do something directly , and thus the minimalist urge is there to write something different to using the features of the language you 're using because for example you may think that would be less efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Reinvigorated Programmer argues that the world is full of excellent programmers who cut their teeth on BASIC, and suggests it could even be because they started out with BASIC.
"


Bullshit.
You know what may be a reason?
The extreme restrictions.
In the 80s I used a fairly good Basic, BBC Basic, but I mostly used 6502 assembler.
This on a machine with very limited memory.
What that does is cause you to do things as efficiently as possible, it makes you think how to best represent the data in memory etc.
In german there's a saying: In der Beschraenkung zeigt sich der Meister" (which translates loosely to "given restrictions, the expert will show himself to be an expert") but I think even better would be "In der Beschraenkung bildet sich der Meister", i.e.
given limitations you will become an expert at various problems.
In literature there are similar situations.
Limits of form/rhyme may instead of restrict a writer, actually make him write better material...
 
But back to Basic: The limitations in there (the early 1980s and some later versions) are mostly not helping one to become an expert.
They just annoy.
What I clearly feel and which is what Dijkstra probably refers to (as it may be a strong effect in some programmers) is that I know how to do something directly, and thus the minimalist urge is there to write something different to using the features of the language you're using because for example you may think that would be less efficient.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424232</id>
	<title>It's not where you start, it's where you're headed</title>
	<author>Trerro</author>
	<datestamp>1268216820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-Can you warp your head around coding logic?<br>-Can you avoid chaining yourself to a specific language, and instead choose one that works well for what you're trying to do, rather than force one to work outside of its intended scope?<br>-Can you handle both procedural code and OOP, and are you aware of the pros and cons of each?<br>-Can you write code others (not to mention you a month later!) can actually read?<br>-Are you willing to take the time to truly learn programming, rather than just copy-pasting a few functions and hoping it works?<br>-When you learn a language, are you willing to actually learn the language, and not just make it behave like one you already know?<br>-Are you aware that debugging often takes longer than actually coding, and are you willing to put that effort in for the sake of quality code?</p><p>If you answered yes to all of the above, you're probably going to be a pretty good programmer, whether you started on C/C++, Assembly, BASIC, or hell, ZZT-OOP. Every language has places it really shines, and every language has glaring flaws - if there was a prefect language that was good at everything, we wouldn't need a few dozen of them.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-Can you warp your head around coding logic ? -Can you avoid chaining yourself to a specific language , and instead choose one that works well for what you 're trying to do , rather than force one to work outside of its intended scope ? -Can you handle both procedural code and OOP , and are you aware of the pros and cons of each ? -Can you write code others ( not to mention you a month later !
) can actually read ? -Are you willing to take the time to truly learn programming , rather than just copy-pasting a few functions and hoping it works ? -When you learn a language , are you willing to actually learn the language , and not just make it behave like one you already know ? -Are you aware that debugging often takes longer than actually coding , and are you willing to put that effort in for the sake of quality code ? If you answered yes to all of the above , you 're probably going to be a pretty good programmer , whether you started on C/C + + , Assembly , BASIC , or hell , ZZT-OOP .
Every language has places it really shines , and every language has glaring flaws - if there was a prefect language that was good at everything , we would n't need a few dozen of them .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-Can you warp your head around coding logic?-Can you avoid chaining yourself to a specific language, and instead choose one that works well for what you're trying to do, rather than force one to work outside of its intended scope?-Can you handle both procedural code and OOP, and are you aware of the pros and cons of each?-Can you write code others (not to mention you a month later!
) can actually read?-Are you willing to take the time to truly learn programming, rather than just copy-pasting a few functions and hoping it works?-When you learn a language, are you willing to actually learn the language, and not just make it behave like one you already know?-Are you aware that debugging often takes longer than actually coding, and are you willing to put that effort in for the sake of quality code?If you answered yes to all of the above, you're probably going to be a pretty good programmer, whether you started on C/C++, Assembly, BASIC, or hell, ZZT-OOP.
Every language has places it really shines, and every language has glaring flaws - if there was a prefect language that was good at everything, we wouldn't need a few dozen of them.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425014</id>
	<title>GOTO = JMP in assembler</title>
	<author>EmperorOfCanada</author>
	<datestamp>1268229900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always found the original Basic, with its gotos and line numbers, to resemble assembler. When I was around 10 I found it very easy to make the jump from Basic to assembler. I would really hate to make the jump from Java to assembler if I were now starting out. Not that I would advise programming in assembler but it is a very good thing for all programmers to know . As basic and assembler both grew up they both even added labels. So in a way learning to get anything done in Basic was actually quite hard core.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always found the original Basic , with its gotos and line numbers , to resemble assembler .
When I was around 10 I found it very easy to make the jump from Basic to assembler .
I would really hate to make the jump from Java to assembler if I were now starting out .
Not that I would advise programming in assembler but it is a very good thing for all programmers to know .
As basic and assembler both grew up they both even added labels .
So in a way learning to get anything done in Basic was actually quite hard core .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always found the original Basic, with its gotos and line numbers, to resemble assembler.
When I was around 10 I found it very easy to make the jump from Basic to assembler.
I would really hate to make the jump from Java to assembler if I were now starting out.
Not that I would advise programming in assembler but it is a very good thing for all programmers to know .
As basic and assembler both grew up they both even added labels.
So in a way learning to get anything done in Basic was actually quite hard core.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425862</id>
	<title>A little historical context</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268235300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BASIC evolved over the years. If memory serves, Basic at the time Dijkstra made these comments had no functions with local variables, no structured control statements, and so on. It was more like assembly language with good string support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BASIC evolved over the years .
If memory serves , Basic at the time Dijkstra made these comments had no functions with local variables , no structured control statements , and so on .
It was more like assembly language with good string support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BASIC evolved over the years.
If memory serves, Basic at the time Dijkstra made these comments had no functions with local variables, no structured control statements, and so on.
It was more like assembly language with good string support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423936</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is great for kids</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1268212680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A bad workman may blame his tools, but BASIC (traditional line numbered basic) is a tool that encourages formation of bad habits.
<p>
If you can't get your head around basic data structures, then perhaps programming isn't an ideal career path.  To do anything useful at all, you ARE going to have to deal with data structures.
</p><p>
Pascal or even C is a much better first language, imho.
</p><p>
I started off with TRS-80 Color Basic on a Coco 2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A bad workman may blame his tools , but BASIC ( traditional line numbered basic ) is a tool that encourages formation of bad habits .
If you ca n't get your head around basic data structures , then perhaps programming is n't an ideal career path .
To do anything useful at all , you ARE going to have to deal with data structures .
Pascal or even C is a much better first language , imho .
I started off with TRS-80 Color Basic on a Coco 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bad workman may blame his tools, but BASIC (traditional line numbered basic) is a tool that encourages formation of bad habits.
If you can't get your head around basic data structures, then perhaps programming isn't an ideal career path.
To do anything useful at all, you ARE going to have to deal with data structures.
Pascal or even C is a much better first language, imho.
I started off with TRS-80 Color Basic on a Coco 2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424900</id>
	<title>VB.NET</title>
	<author>zepo1a</author>
	<datestamp>1268228460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use VB.NET (2005 and up) mostly at work. Back in the olden days when I was in college, we learned, in order. BASIC 1 &amp; 2, FORTRAN, COBOL 1 &amp; 2 and then ASSEMBLER for your degree.</p><p>I was a VIC-20 hacker and then moved to C-64 and then ATARI 800XL (mixing basic and ML) before I started my college days. When Turbo C came along I bought that and learned a bit on my own, by that time they were also teaching that at the college I had went to so I went back and took a semester of C.</p><p>I like all those languages, but BASIC is still my favorite. I'll take an app I've coded here for work, and for fun, recode it in C# (or even C...C++ I consider a nightmare), but really, there is no difference anymore speed wise for your basic apps. Yeah, I'm not writing device drivers or sending bits through serial ports or IN and OUT ing to the sound card, but then not everything needs to be coded to the bare metal ALL THE TIME. When it's required I can do it, but most of the time, it's not</p><p>Yeah, back in the day I ditched basic for a while and used C because the basic interpreters were slow. But today, I'm happy with VB.NET (and C#).</p><p>I'll never understand the hate for BASIC. It's a tool, you can use it right or you can use it wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use VB.NET ( 2005 and up ) mostly at work .
Back in the olden days when I was in college , we learned , in order .
BASIC 1 &amp; 2 , FORTRAN , COBOL 1 &amp; 2 and then ASSEMBLER for your degree.I was a VIC-20 hacker and then moved to C-64 and then ATARI 800XL ( mixing basic and ML ) before I started my college days .
When Turbo C came along I bought that and learned a bit on my own , by that time they were also teaching that at the college I had went to so I went back and took a semester of C.I like all those languages , but BASIC is still my favorite .
I 'll take an app I 've coded here for work , and for fun , recode it in C # ( or even C...C + + I consider a nightmare ) , but really , there is no difference anymore speed wise for your basic apps .
Yeah , I 'm not writing device drivers or sending bits through serial ports or IN and OUT ing to the sound card , but then not everything needs to be coded to the bare metal ALL THE TIME .
When it 's required I can do it , but most of the time , it 's notYeah , back in the day I ditched basic for a while and used C because the basic interpreters were slow .
But today , I 'm happy with VB.NET ( and C # ) .I 'll never understand the hate for BASIC .
It 's a tool , you can use it right or you can use it wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use VB.NET (2005 and up) mostly at work.
Back in the olden days when I was in college, we learned, in order.
BASIC 1 &amp; 2, FORTRAN, COBOL 1 &amp; 2 and then ASSEMBLER for your degree.I was a VIC-20 hacker and then moved to C-64 and then ATARI 800XL (mixing basic and ML) before I started my college days.
When Turbo C came along I bought that and learned a bit on my own, by that time they were also teaching that at the college I had went to so I went back and took a semester of C.I like all those languages, but BASIC is still my favorite.
I'll take an app I've coded here for work, and for fun, recode it in C# (or even C...C++ I consider a nightmare), but really, there is no difference anymore speed wise for your basic apps.
Yeah, I'm not writing device drivers or sending bits through serial ports or IN and OUT ing to the sound card, but then not everything needs to be coded to the bare metal ALL THE TIME.
When it's required I can do it, but most of the time, it's notYeah, back in the day I ditched basic for a while and used C because the basic interpreters were slow.
But today, I'm happy with VB.NET (and C#).I'll never understand the hate for BASIC.
It's a tool, you can use it right or you can use it wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423830</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is irrelevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268254740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm doing a Programming Fundamentals course (mandatory and boring for me) and they're using Java... most of the students have never programmed in their life, and are completely overwhelmed by OOP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm doing a Programming Fundamentals course ( mandatory and boring for me ) and they 're using Java... most of the students have never programmed in their life , and are completely overwhelmed by OOP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm doing a Programming Fundamentals course (mandatory and boring for me) and they're using Java... most of the students have never programmed in their life, and are completely overwhelmed by OOP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423922</id>
	<title>Re:Second story from this blog this week...</title>
	<author>ipquickly</author>
	<datestamp>1268212500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no offense to sushi connoisseurs<br>but preceding the activation of image block<br>a feeling of illness ensued</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no offense to sushi connoisseursbut preceding the activation of image blocka feeling of illness ensued</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no offense to sushi connoisseursbut preceding the activation of image blocka feeling of illness ensued</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424846</id>
	<title>Exacty.</title>
	<author>TheDarkMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1268227440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. It not the language that makes a bad programmer, is the lack of knowledge. <br>Speaking a language that has dominated the market is "garbage" because it would be "too easy" to "superdevelopers of today" (so they think) is a huge childish that I can only see people who think using 50MB of ram to make a "hello world" is acceptable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
It not the language that makes a bad programmer , is the lack of knowledge .
Speaking a language that has dominated the market is " garbage " because it would be " too easy " to " superdevelopers of today " ( so they think ) is a huge childish that I can only see people who think using 50MB of ram to make a " hello world " is acceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
It not the language that makes a bad programmer, is the lack of knowledge.
Speaking a language that has dominated the market is "garbage" because it would be "too easy" to "superdevelopers of today" (so they think) is a huge childish that I can only see people who think using 50MB of ram to make a "hello world" is acceptable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424242</id>
	<title>Re:I started with BASIC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268217060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Similar anecdote: I "cheated" in Advanced Pure Mathematics at high school, by programming the TRS-80 down the hall to proportion and draw out the radially-defined functions on X-Y graphs. Watching those graphs appear on screen after editing the formula was a delight I have not experienced since in 30 years of coding. I freaked when my Pure Math prof walked in one day and "caught me" in the act of "finishing my homework" using the TRS-80. Instead of reprimanding me, he assigned me to teach anyone else in the class how to program in BASIC for the Applied Math course - he said that if I understood both the pure math and computer language well enough to "cheat" like that, then he had nothing to reprimand me for. He was pleased to find a free resource for other interested students. He was a great guy - I wish all teachers were as sensible and open-minded.</p><p>BASIC was a source of great invention and discovery, and the lack of a WHILE loop didn't harm or impede us in any way whatsoever. Like other posters have pointed out, earning your brownie points with BASIC sure made "advanced" programming languages very easy to understand, both in terms of constructs and WHY those constructs were a good thing - nothing like 10 levels of nested GOTOs to make you appreciate strict function and procedure definitions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Similar anecdote : I " cheated " in Advanced Pure Mathematics at high school , by programming the TRS-80 down the hall to proportion and draw out the radially-defined functions on X-Y graphs .
Watching those graphs appear on screen after editing the formula was a delight I have not experienced since in 30 years of coding .
I freaked when my Pure Math prof walked in one day and " caught me " in the act of " finishing my homework " using the TRS-80 .
Instead of reprimanding me , he assigned me to teach anyone else in the class how to program in BASIC for the Applied Math course - he said that if I understood both the pure math and computer language well enough to " cheat " like that , then he had nothing to reprimand me for .
He was pleased to find a free resource for other interested students .
He was a great guy - I wish all teachers were as sensible and open-minded.BASIC was a source of great invention and discovery , and the lack of a WHILE loop did n't harm or impede us in any way whatsoever .
Like other posters have pointed out , earning your brownie points with BASIC sure made " advanced " programming languages very easy to understand , both in terms of constructs and WHY those constructs were a good thing - nothing like 10 levels of nested GOTOs to make you appreciate strict function and procedure definitions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Similar anecdote: I "cheated" in Advanced Pure Mathematics at high school, by programming the TRS-80 down the hall to proportion and draw out the radially-defined functions on X-Y graphs.
Watching those graphs appear on screen after editing the formula was a delight I have not experienced since in 30 years of coding.
I freaked when my Pure Math prof walked in one day and "caught me" in the act of "finishing my homework" using the TRS-80.
Instead of reprimanding me, he assigned me to teach anyone else in the class how to program in BASIC for the Applied Math course - he said that if I understood both the pure math and computer language well enough to "cheat" like that, then he had nothing to reprimand me for.
He was pleased to find a free resource for other interested students.
He was a great guy - I wish all teachers were as sensible and open-minded.BASIC was a source of great invention and discovery, and the lack of a WHILE loop didn't harm or impede us in any way whatsoever.
Like other posters have pointed out, earning your brownie points with BASIC sure made "advanced" programming languages very easy to understand, both in terms of constructs and WHY those constructs were a good thing - nothing like 10 levels of nested GOTOs to make you appreciate strict function and procedure definitions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424380</id>
	<title>Evolution</title>
	<author>ledow</author>
	<datestamp>1268219940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like all things, you can't give a blanket statement here.  Yes, there will be some people who "learned" BASIC when they were young and now, when they are let loose on an Excel macro in work, will pine for line numbers and GOTO's.  But they would have done that no matter what they learned.  However, there's also a damn lot of people who moved on from BASIC very quickly but still have a fond association with it because of their history and because of the simplicity of some tasks in BASIC (of course, a lot of things are more complex but depending on your project you can still "win" on speed using BASIC).  If I was to "invent" my own programming language, there are features from just about every language I've ever used that I'd want to be incorporated.  Even BASIC has some things that I'd want to include, or that have been copied into lots of other languages.</p><p>I think BASIC was an introduction - a way to hide the complexities, to say "don't worry about memory management and data structures just yet, let's learn half-way to being able to program so you can get interested and have some fun quickly".  And then when you did that, it was *so* much easier to move to other languages.  Of course you still had to learn and change habits - but that's the point of learning.  People who drove a moped when they were 17 don't go on to drive a car and keep twisting the indicator stalks to change gear or accelerate.</p><p>But BASIC only corrupted those who were corruptible - those who didn't *care* how the computer allocated memory or whether the program was efficient or readable were bound to carry on not caring in other languages.  And those people, by definition, would have been like that in any language and probably *never* go on to learn any other.</p><p>My dad bought me a ZX Spectrum in 1987 or thereabouts.  I was 8.  Within the first week I was trying to figure out how to program in BASIC (by the help of that orange-spiral-bound BASIC manual that came with it - damn that should be a compulsory item with all new computers).  Without that book being included, I'd probably now only know how to 'LOAD ""' and my life would be very different.  If that had been any of the C books that I've ever read, I would have thrown it in the bin immediately.  Within a year (in between playing games, school, and pulling girls' hair), I was a pretty proficient BASIC programmer.  It helped that I was also doing things like typing in listings from magazines (an early form of Open Source that will forever be sadly missed) and trying to understand Z80 assembly.  By the time I got to secondary school (age 11), I was writing games for fun for my friends.  I wrote a No-CD crack for Desert Strike when it first come out on PC, I was 13, and was incredibly proud of my first use of x86 assembly / Ralf Brown's Interrupt List - I never distributed it to anyone else but it's still sitting around on my machine somewhere.  I did it using DOS "debug" and a hell of a lot of manual path-following and single-stepping through the code.  Around the same time, I wrote a program for Windows 3.11 that prevented execution of programs with certain signatures / hashes / paths that integrated into the school's Novell network and was so damn good that even the network administrator (an old-school IT guy) couldn't bypass it on the test accounts.  He seriously considered deploying it to help curb a spate of students running programs via Word macros, DOS command prompts and other clever tricks (I never had the heart to tell him how they were doing it, who had taught them that, or why I felt so guilty that I had to counter-act all those methods for him...)</p><p>By the time I got to Year 11 (age 15), I was programming on my TI-85 in the back of the class (and sharing those games / programs with the rest of my class) and writing "toy" operating systems for my PC.  I was receiving email from Canada (a massive thing at that time) telling me how good my games were, and I was dabbling in everything I could find: C, Pascal, FORTRAN, assembly and even things like DOS Batch scripting and</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like all things , you ca n't give a blanket statement here .
Yes , there will be some people who " learned " BASIC when they were young and now , when they are let loose on an Excel macro in work , will pine for line numbers and GOTO 's .
But they would have done that no matter what they learned .
However , there 's also a damn lot of people who moved on from BASIC very quickly but still have a fond association with it because of their history and because of the simplicity of some tasks in BASIC ( of course , a lot of things are more complex but depending on your project you can still " win " on speed using BASIC ) .
If I was to " invent " my own programming language , there are features from just about every language I 've ever used that I 'd want to be incorporated .
Even BASIC has some things that I 'd want to include , or that have been copied into lots of other languages.I think BASIC was an introduction - a way to hide the complexities , to say " do n't worry about memory management and data structures just yet , let 's learn half-way to being able to program so you can get interested and have some fun quickly " .
And then when you did that , it was * so * much easier to move to other languages .
Of course you still had to learn and change habits - but that 's the point of learning .
People who drove a moped when they were 17 do n't go on to drive a car and keep twisting the indicator stalks to change gear or accelerate.But BASIC only corrupted those who were corruptible - those who did n't * care * how the computer allocated memory or whether the program was efficient or readable were bound to carry on not caring in other languages .
And those people , by definition , would have been like that in any language and probably * never * go on to learn any other.My dad bought me a ZX Spectrum in 1987 or thereabouts .
I was 8 .
Within the first week I was trying to figure out how to program in BASIC ( by the help of that orange-spiral-bound BASIC manual that came with it - damn that should be a compulsory item with all new computers ) .
Without that book being included , I 'd probably now only know how to 'LOAD " " ' and my life would be very different .
If that had been any of the C books that I 've ever read , I would have thrown it in the bin immediately .
Within a year ( in between playing games , school , and pulling girls ' hair ) , I was a pretty proficient BASIC programmer .
It helped that I was also doing things like typing in listings from magazines ( an early form of Open Source that will forever be sadly missed ) and trying to understand Z80 assembly .
By the time I got to secondary school ( age 11 ) , I was writing games for fun for my friends .
I wrote a No-CD crack for Desert Strike when it first come out on PC , I was 13 , and was incredibly proud of my first use of x86 assembly / Ralf Brown 's Interrupt List - I never distributed it to anyone else but it 's still sitting around on my machine somewhere .
I did it using DOS " debug " and a hell of a lot of manual path-following and single-stepping through the code .
Around the same time , I wrote a program for Windows 3.11 that prevented execution of programs with certain signatures / hashes / paths that integrated into the school 's Novell network and was so damn good that even the network administrator ( an old-school IT guy ) could n't bypass it on the test accounts .
He seriously considered deploying it to help curb a spate of students running programs via Word macros , DOS command prompts and other clever tricks ( I never had the heart to tell him how they were doing it , who had taught them that , or why I felt so guilty that I had to counter-act all those methods for him... ) By the time I got to Year 11 ( age 15 ) , I was programming on my TI-85 in the back of the class ( and sharing those games / programs with the rest of my class ) and writing " toy " operating systems for my PC .
I was receiving email from Canada ( a massive thing at that time ) telling me how good my games were , and I was dabbling in everything I could find : C , Pascal , FORTRAN , assembly and even things like DOS Batch scripting and</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like all things, you can't give a blanket statement here.
Yes, there will be some people who "learned" BASIC when they were young and now, when they are let loose on an Excel macro in work, will pine for line numbers and GOTO's.
But they would have done that no matter what they learned.
However, there's also a damn lot of people who moved on from BASIC very quickly but still have a fond association with it because of their history and because of the simplicity of some tasks in BASIC (of course, a lot of things are more complex but depending on your project you can still "win" on speed using BASIC).
If I was to "invent" my own programming language, there are features from just about every language I've ever used that I'd want to be incorporated.
Even BASIC has some things that I'd want to include, or that have been copied into lots of other languages.I think BASIC was an introduction - a way to hide the complexities, to say "don't worry about memory management and data structures just yet, let's learn half-way to being able to program so you can get interested and have some fun quickly".
And then when you did that, it was *so* much easier to move to other languages.
Of course you still had to learn and change habits - but that's the point of learning.
People who drove a moped when they were 17 don't go on to drive a car and keep twisting the indicator stalks to change gear or accelerate.But BASIC only corrupted those who were corruptible - those who didn't *care* how the computer allocated memory or whether the program was efficient or readable were bound to carry on not caring in other languages.
And those people, by definition, would have been like that in any language and probably *never* go on to learn any other.My dad bought me a ZX Spectrum in 1987 or thereabouts.
I was 8.
Within the first week I was trying to figure out how to program in BASIC (by the help of that orange-spiral-bound BASIC manual that came with it - damn that should be a compulsory item with all new computers).
Without that book being included, I'd probably now only know how to 'LOAD ""' and my life would be very different.
If that had been any of the C books that I've ever read, I would have thrown it in the bin immediately.
Within a year (in between playing games, school, and pulling girls' hair), I was a pretty proficient BASIC programmer.
It helped that I was also doing things like typing in listings from magazines (an early form of Open Source that will forever be sadly missed) and trying to understand Z80 assembly.
By the time I got to secondary school (age 11), I was writing games for fun for my friends.
I wrote a No-CD crack for Desert Strike when it first come out on PC, I was 13, and was incredibly proud of my first use of x86 assembly / Ralf Brown's Interrupt List - I never distributed it to anyone else but it's still sitting around on my machine somewhere.
I did it using DOS "debug" and a hell of a lot of manual path-following and single-stepping through the code.
Around the same time, I wrote a program for Windows 3.11 that prevented execution of programs with certain signatures / hashes / paths that integrated into the school's Novell network and was so damn good that even the network administrator (an old-school IT guy) couldn't bypass it on the test accounts.
He seriously considered deploying it to help curb a spate of students running programs via Word macros, DOS command prompts and other clever tricks (I never had the heart to tell him how they were doing it, who had taught them that, or why I felt so guilty that I had to counter-act all those methods for him...)By the time I got to Year 11 (age 15), I was programming on my TI-85 in the back of the class (and sharing those games / programs with the rest of my class) and writing "toy" operating systems for my PC.
I was receiving email from Canada (a massive thing at that time) telling me how good my games were, and I was dabbling in everything I could find: C, Pascal, FORTRAN, assembly and even things like DOS Batch scripting and</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424540</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is irrelevant</title>
	<author>Eudeyrn</author>
	<datestamp>1268222160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>What intro-level courses use C or C++?</i> </p></div><p>University of Kentucky, CS115, CS215, CS216.  A 3 semester 100\% C++ block, required for all CS and CE majors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What intro-level courses use C or C + + ?
University of Kentucky , CS115 , CS215 , CS216 .
A 3 semester 100 \ % C + + block , required for all CS and CE majors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> What intro-level courses use C or C++?
University of Kentucky, CS115, CS215, CS216.
A 3 semester 100\% C++ block, required for all CS and CE majors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426084</id>
	<title>basic aint what it used to be</title>
	<author>johnrpenner</author>
	<datestamp>1268236440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when you think of basic - you talk of GOTO statements &amp; line numbers.<br>but modern Basics just havent used Goto statements or Line numbers in almost 2.5 decades!</p><p>except for some syntactical curiosities - the code you write with basic<br>supports the same structures as C, pascal, or java for decades already.</p><p>when's the last time you've seen Basic code? did it have line numbers or goto statements?<br>how about variable records (structs), function passing, and C-like dimensioning:</p><p>| local FN generateRawMoves(board as ^boardRecord, moves(0) as moveRecord)<br>|<br>| dim as long pieceMoves, numMoves, querySquare<br>|<br>| numMoves = 0<br>|<br>| for querySquare = 1 to 64<br>|    pieceMoves = 0<br>|    long if board.square[querySquare]  0<br>|       pieceMoves = FN pieceTree(board, moves(0), querySquare)<br>|    end if<br>|<br>|    numMoves = numMoves++<br>| next querySquare<br>|<br>| end FN = numMoves</p><p>basic as it was 20-30 years ago is not what basic has become.</p><p>on the mac, there's currently a very useful (free!) futurebasic5 to C<br>cross-compiler available here, with an active 20yr+ user community:</p><p>FBtoC: <a href="http://www.4toc.com/fb/" title="4toc.com">http://www.4toc.com/fb/</a> [4toc.com]<br>|<br>| FBtoC 5.4.4 creates Mac OS X universal applications<br>| (Mach-O executables) from FutureBasic source.</p><p>real basic allows object oriented (cocoa) code, and is cross-platform:</p><p>RealBasic:<br><a href="http://www.realsoftware.com/realbasic/" title="realsoftware.com">http://www.realsoftware.com/realbasic/</a> [realsoftware.com]</p><p>basic has also been adopted to some new paradigms.<br>it used to be that basic wasn't compiled, and interpreted languages<br>were considered too slow -- now basic is compiled, and java abounds.</p><p>or -- instead of using csh for scripting -- how about basic??</p><p>Apple I BASIC as a Mac OS X Scripting Language<br><a href="http://www.pagetable.com/?p=35" title="pagetable.com">http://www.pagetable.com/?p=35</a> [pagetable.com]<br>|<br>| $ cat reverse.bas<br>| #!/usr/bin/apple1basic<br>| 10 DIM A$(100)<br>| 20 INPUT A$<br>| 30 FOR I = LEN(A$) TO 1 STEP -1<br>| 40 PRINT A$(I,I);<br>| 50 NEXT I<br>| 60 PRINT<br>| 70 END<br>| $ chmod a+x reverse.bas<br>| $ echo MICHAEL STEIL |<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./reverse.bas<br>| LIETS LEAHCIM</p><p>basic aint what it was - so stop this thirty-year old gripe against goto &amp; line numbers... aaargh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when you think of basic - you talk of GOTO statements &amp; line numbers.but modern Basics just havent used Goto statements or Line numbers in almost 2.5 decades ! except for some syntactical curiosities - the code you write with basicsupports the same structures as C , pascal , or java for decades already.when 's the last time you 've seen Basic code ?
did it have line numbers or goto statements ? how about variable records ( structs ) , function passing , and C-like dimensioning : | local FN generateRawMoves ( board as ^ boardRecord , moves ( 0 ) as moveRecord ) | | dim as long pieceMoves , numMoves , querySquare | | numMoves = 0 | | for querySquare = 1 to 64 | pieceMoves = 0 | long if board.square [ querySquare ] 0 | pieceMoves = FN pieceTree ( board , moves ( 0 ) , querySquare ) | end if | | numMoves = numMoves + + | next querySquare | | end FN = numMovesbasic as it was 20-30 years ago is not what basic has become.on the mac , there 's currently a very useful ( free !
) futurebasic5 to Ccross-compiler available here , with an active 20yr + user community : FBtoC : http : //www.4toc.com/fb/ [ 4toc.com ] | | FBtoC 5.4.4 creates Mac OS X universal applications | ( Mach-O executables ) from FutureBasic source.real basic allows object oriented ( cocoa ) code , and is cross-platform : RealBasic : http : //www.realsoftware.com/realbasic/ [ realsoftware.com ] basic has also been adopted to some new paradigms.it used to be that basic was n't compiled , and interpreted languageswere considered too slow -- now basic is compiled , and java abounds.or -- instead of using csh for scripting -- how about basic ?
? Apple I BASIC as a Mac OS X Scripting Languagehttp : //www.pagetable.com/ ? p = 35 [ pagetable.com ] | | $ cat reverse.bas | # ! /usr/bin/apple1basic | 10 DIM A $ ( 100 ) | 20 INPUT A $ | 30 FOR I = LEN ( A $ ) TO 1 STEP -1 | 40 PRINT A $ ( I,I ) ; | 50 NEXT I | 60 PRINT | 70 END | $ chmod a + x reverse.bas | $ echo MICHAEL STEIL | ./reverse.bas | LIETS LEAHCIMbasic aint what it was - so stop this thirty-year old gripe against goto &amp; line numbers... aaargh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when you think of basic - you talk of GOTO statements &amp; line numbers.but modern Basics just havent used Goto statements or Line numbers in almost 2.5 decades!except for some syntactical curiosities - the code you write with basicsupports the same structures as C, pascal, or java for decades already.when's the last time you've seen Basic code?
did it have line numbers or goto statements?how about variable records (structs), function passing, and C-like dimensioning:| local FN generateRawMoves(board as ^boardRecord, moves(0) as moveRecord)|| dim as long pieceMoves, numMoves, querySquare|| numMoves = 0|| for querySquare = 1 to 64|    pieceMoves = 0|    long if board.square[querySquare]  0|       pieceMoves = FN pieceTree(board, moves(0), querySquare)|    end if||    numMoves = numMoves++| next querySquare|| end FN = numMovesbasic as it was 20-30 years ago is not what basic has become.on the mac, there's currently a very useful (free!
) futurebasic5 to Ccross-compiler available here, with an active 20yr+ user community:FBtoC: http://www.4toc.com/fb/ [4toc.com]|| FBtoC 5.4.4 creates Mac OS X universal applications| (Mach-O executables) from FutureBasic source.real basic allows object oriented (cocoa) code, and is cross-platform:RealBasic:http://www.realsoftware.com/realbasic/ [realsoftware.com]basic has also been adopted to some new paradigms.it used to be that basic wasn't compiled, and interpreted languageswere considered too slow -- now basic is compiled, and java abounds.or -- instead of using csh for scripting -- how about basic?
?Apple I BASIC as a Mac OS X Scripting Languagehttp://www.pagetable.com/?p=35 [pagetable.com]|| $ cat reverse.bas| #!/usr/bin/apple1basic| 10 DIM A$(100)| 20 INPUT A$| 30 FOR I = LEN(A$) TO 1 STEP -1| 40 PRINT A$(I,I);| 50 NEXT I| 60 PRINT| 70 END| $ chmod a+x reverse.bas| $ echo MICHAEL STEIL | ./reverse.bas| LIETS LEAHCIMbasic aint what it was - so stop this thirty-year old gripe against goto &amp; line numbers... aaargh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423752</id>
	<title>Bah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268253720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You haven't really programmed until you've implemented a linked list using arrays in Basic!
<p>
Worthless? Hardly!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have n't really programmed until you 've implemented a linked list using arrays in Basic !
Worthless ? Hardly !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You haven't really programmed until you've implemented a linked list using arrays in Basic!
Worthless? Hardly!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423694</id>
	<title>Funny argument</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1268253360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>His argument is kind of funny.  He says people who've learned in BASIC have learned what NOT to do when programming.  I have to admit he has a point....I learned exactly why spaghetti code was a bad idea after doing it for a couple years.  Some people think they know what spaghetti code is, but unless they've written code with line numbers, they probably don't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>His argument is kind of funny .
He says people who 've learned in BASIC have learned what NOT to do when programming .
I have to admit he has a point....I learned exactly why spaghetti code was a bad idea after doing it for a couple years .
Some people think they know what spaghetti code is , but unless they 've written code with line numbers , they probably do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His argument is kind of funny.
He says people who've learned in BASIC have learned what NOT to do when programming.
I have to admit he has a point....I learned exactly why spaghetti code was a bad idea after doing it for a couple years.
Some people think they know what spaghetti code is, but unless they've written code with line numbers, they probably don't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428352</id>
	<title>Re:I'd guess there's a critical period &amp; an at</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268246700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that there is a critical stage in the development of a programmer that will shape the end product.</p><p>I was fortunate enough to have Scheme (think LISP) taught to me in my intro CS class (after learning BASIC as a kid and being exposed to other things like Logo and FORTRAN).  This opened up a whole new way of thinking about logic structures and recursion that just isn't possible with BASIC.</p><p>My university curriculum also included "Comparative Programming Languages" in the second year of CS, which taught four or five vastly different languages.  I would find it hard to believe if other schools didn't do the same, as it's just massively useful for a young programmer to get this exposure early in the process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that there is a critical stage in the development of a programmer that will shape the end product.I was fortunate enough to have Scheme ( think LISP ) taught to me in my intro CS class ( after learning BASIC as a kid and being exposed to other things like Logo and FORTRAN ) .
This opened up a whole new way of thinking about logic structures and recursion that just is n't possible with BASIC.My university curriculum also included " Comparative Programming Languages " in the second year of CS , which taught four or five vastly different languages .
I would find it hard to believe if other schools did n't do the same , as it 's just massively useful for a young programmer to get this exposure early in the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that there is a critical stage in the development of a programmer that will shape the end product.I was fortunate enough to have Scheme (think LISP) taught to me in my intro CS class (after learning BASIC as a kid and being exposed to other things like Logo and FORTRAN).
This opened up a whole new way of thinking about logic structures and recursion that just isn't possible with BASIC.My university curriculum also included "Comparative Programming Languages" in the second year of CS, which taught four or five vastly different languages.
I would find it hard to believe if other schools didn't do the same, as it's just massively useful for a young programmer to get this exposure early in the process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31435062</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>twosat</author>
	<datestamp>1268250120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't you know that the problem with GOTO was solved years ago with COMEFROM  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMEFROM" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMEFROM</a> [wikipedia.org]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you know that the problem with GOTO was solved years ago with COMEFROM http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMEFROM [ wikipedia.org ] ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you know that the problem with GOTO was solved years ago with COMEFROM  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMEFROM [wikipedia.org] ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31443946</id>
	<title>Re:Variety</title>
	<author>rbanffy</author>
	<datestamp>1268301000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Now I can code in all kinds of languages, assembly, PHP, Ruby, Javascript, etc..</p><p>Just make sure you are not writing FORTRAN code in assembly, PHP, Ruby, Javascript, etc..<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Now I can code in all kinds of languages , assembly , PHP , Ruby , Javascript , etc..Just make sure you are not writing FORTRAN code in assembly , PHP , Ruby , Javascript , etc.. ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Now I can code in all kinds of languages, assembly, PHP, Ruby, Javascript, etc..Just make sure you are not writing FORTRAN code in assembly, PHP, Ruby, Javascript, etc.. ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425988</id>
	<title>BASIC is fine...Really!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268235960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I cut my teeth on BASIC, fell asleep in Pascal class and ended up with a degree in Journalism. Which I then used sparingly while earning 100K+ writing VB apps and managing software development projects. The moral of the story is that what you learn is not nearly as important as what you do and the quality with which you do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I cut my teeth on BASIC , fell asleep in Pascal class and ended up with a degree in Journalism .
Which I then used sparingly while earning 100K + writing VB apps and managing software development projects .
The moral of the story is that what you learn is not nearly as important as what you do and the quality with which you do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cut my teeth on BASIC, fell asleep in Pascal class and ended up with a degree in Journalism.
Which I then used sparingly while earning 100K+ writing VB apps and managing software development projects.
The moral of the story is that what you learn is not nearly as important as what you do and the quality with which you do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425710</id>
	<title>Its not the language...</title>
	<author>Drethon</author>
	<datestamp>1268234340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its how you use it.  A good programmer understands that no matter what programming language they use, the same structures apply (ex: branches, loops and function call/gosubs).<br>
<br>
I write my first few little programs in various basic languages.  I learned quickly that programming in blocks (one entry point, one exit) simplified things greatly.  My first real training was in college in Java.  This just further emphasized proper coding structure and built on what I had already learned on my own.<br>
<br>
Since then I can develop programs in C/C++, Java, Ada, assembly, DXL, Perl and other languages but no matter what the language is I simply picture what structure I want to use and then figure out how that language can implement that structure.<br>
<br>
Ultimately its not the language, its the developer...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its how you use it .
A good programmer understands that no matter what programming language they use , the same structures apply ( ex : branches , loops and function call/gosubs ) .
I write my first few little programs in various basic languages .
I learned quickly that programming in blocks ( one entry point , one exit ) simplified things greatly .
My first real training was in college in Java .
This just further emphasized proper coding structure and built on what I had already learned on my own .
Since then I can develop programs in C/C + + , Java , Ada , assembly , DXL , Perl and other languages but no matter what the language is I simply picture what structure I want to use and then figure out how that language can implement that structure .
Ultimately its not the language , its the developer.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its how you use it.
A good programmer understands that no matter what programming language they use, the same structures apply (ex: branches, loops and function call/gosubs).
I write my first few little programs in various basic languages.
I learned quickly that programming in blocks (one entry point, one exit) simplified things greatly.
My first real training was in college in Java.
This just further emphasized proper coding structure and built on what I had already learned on my own.
Since then I can develop programs in C/C++, Java, Ada, assembly, DXL, Perl and other languages but no matter what the language is I simply picture what structure I want to use and then figure out how that language can implement that structure.
Ultimately its not the language, its the developer...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428546</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1268247480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The chainsaw is certainly not an all purpose cutting tool. If you're trying to cut your steak it certainly is harmful. However, none of that suggests a global ban on chainsaws considering that when felling a tree, a steak knife is not useful.</p><p>Perhaps "indiscriminate use of goto considered harmful" would be more accurate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The chainsaw is certainly not an all purpose cutting tool .
If you 're trying to cut your steak it certainly is harmful .
However , none of that suggests a global ban on chainsaws considering that when felling a tree , a steak knife is not useful.Perhaps " indiscriminate use of goto considered harmful " would be more accurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The chainsaw is certainly not an all purpose cutting tool.
If you're trying to cut your steak it certainly is harmful.
However, none of that suggests a global ban on chainsaws considering that when felling a tree, a steak knife is not useful.Perhaps "indiscriminate use of goto considered harmful" would be more accurate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426034</id>
	<title>I agree</title>
	<author>joshsnow</author>
	<datestamp>1268236140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree. A good library or Framework allied with the basics of the language and some knowledge of best practice probably go a lot further than people give credit for. I too learned BASIC (BBC-Basic) and had a lot of fun with it. Was taught PASCAL and Modula2, but I struggled with C. Pointers and memory management and the lack of instant feedback that you get with BASIC really put me off. I spent years with some 4GLs and database specific languages before a very well structured, framework heavy proprietary OO language eventaully took me to Java, which is where I am now. However, I will be revisting C and ObjectiveC in order to do something with the iPhone. It's not nearly as daunting now as it once was.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
A good library or Framework allied with the basics of the language and some knowledge of best practice probably go a lot further than people give credit for .
I too learned BASIC ( BBC-Basic ) and had a lot of fun with it .
Was taught PASCAL and Modula2 , but I struggled with C. Pointers and memory management and the lack of instant feedback that you get with BASIC really put me off .
I spent years with some 4GLs and database specific languages before a very well structured , framework heavy proprietary OO language eventaully took me to Java , which is where I am now .
However , I will be revisting C and ObjectiveC in order to do something with the iPhone .
It 's not nearly as daunting now as it once was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
A good library or Framework allied with the basics of the language and some knowledge of best practice probably go a lot further than people give credit for.
I too learned BASIC (BBC-Basic) and had a lot of fun with it.
Was taught PASCAL and Modula2, but I struggled with C. Pointers and memory management and the lack of instant feedback that you get with BASIC really put me off.
I spent years with some 4GLs and database specific languages before a very well structured, framework heavy proprietary OO language eventaully took me to Java, which is where I am now.
However, I will be revisting C and ObjectiveC in order to do something with the iPhone.
It's not nearly as daunting now as it once was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424650</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>g253</author>
	<datestamp>1268224140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. That's the one big fact that always made me skeptical of the idea that goto was bad.<br>
Of course, the point is that there are better structures that are often more elegant or appropriate, but I think a goto can be useful, even in high-level programming. I've found Bram Cohen's blog entry on the matter to be quite interesting: <a href="http://bramcohen.livejournal.com/66555.html" title="livejournal.com">http://bramcohen.livejournal.com/66555.html</a> [livejournal.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
That 's the one big fact that always made me skeptical of the idea that goto was bad .
Of course , the point is that there are better structures that are often more elegant or appropriate , but I think a goto can be useful , even in high-level programming .
I 've found Bram Cohen 's blog entry on the matter to be quite interesting : http : //bramcohen.livejournal.com/66555.html [ livejournal.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
That's the one big fact that always made me skeptical of the idea that goto was bad.
Of course, the point is that there are better structures that are often more elegant or appropriate, but I think a goto can be useful, even in high-level programming.
I've found Bram Cohen's blog entry on the matter to be quite interesting: http://bramcohen.livejournal.com/66555.html [livejournal.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425880</id>
	<title>Nonsense!</title>
	<author>sagematt</author>
	<datestamp>1268235420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I started with BASIC and now I'm a professional Visual Basic developer!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I started with BASIC and now I 'm a professional Visual Basic developer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I started with BASIC and now I'm a professional Visual Basic developer!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31450022</id>
	<title>MySQL and PHP</title>
	<author>Danzigism</author>
	<datestamp>1268397600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like a lot of people, I started off with BASIC and thought that is how programming was. I never was exposed to anything object oriented. The day I was exposed to C I decided to give up programming haha. But alas, 15 years later, I found a really good book written by the Head First Labs (O'Reilly) all about how to use MySQL and PHP. I think those who were DEAD SET on BASIC back in the day, should have no problem whatsoever using MySQL. It is plain english. Yes it's a database, but it is exciting when you learn to use it. Add some PHP and you start learning the essential format of more modern code. Simply understanding what semicolons, curly brackets, concatenation, and the basic operators do, will get you very far.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like a lot of people , I started off with BASIC and thought that is how programming was .
I never was exposed to anything object oriented .
The day I was exposed to C I decided to give up programming haha .
But alas , 15 years later , I found a really good book written by the Head First Labs ( O'Reilly ) all about how to use MySQL and PHP .
I think those who were DEAD SET on BASIC back in the day , should have no problem whatsoever using MySQL .
It is plain english .
Yes it 's a database , but it is exciting when you learn to use it .
Add some PHP and you start learning the essential format of more modern code .
Simply understanding what semicolons , curly brackets , concatenation , and the basic operators do , will get you very far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like a lot of people, I started off with BASIC and thought that is how programming was.
I never was exposed to anything object oriented.
The day I was exposed to C I decided to give up programming haha.
But alas, 15 years later, I found a really good book written by the Head First Labs (O'Reilly) all about how to use MySQL and PHP.
I think those who were DEAD SET on BASIC back in the day, should have no problem whatsoever using MySQL.
It is plain english.
Yes it's a database, but it is exciting when you learn to use it.
Add some PHP and you start learning the essential format of more modern code.
Simply understanding what semicolons, curly brackets, concatenation, and the basic operators do, will get you very far.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423862</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is great for kids</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268211900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I maintain that Python can do this much more easily due to the fact that there are simply fewer ridiculous syntax requirements in a simpler to read format. The things you learn in BASIC can be taught at a much more significant level in Python (inline AND block comments, order of instructions, basic control structures, variables and their use) without jumping through the hoops that you will in BASIC. Python's use of whitespace and extensibility allow beginners with an aptitude to expand on their knowledge easily by making simple inferences about how some control structures work (Python has an excellent for loop implementation) .</p><p>Python does not require classes, can be used as an imperative language, and can provide subroutines in the form of other functions easily simply be defining it in the environment (which is not a difficult concept to grasp, "the computer needs to be told that it can use it" will suffice for beginners which is true enough).</p><p>Basically, Python can provide all the same benefits as BASIC without the stupid unnecessary crap (Explicit Line numbers? Really? Are we still using punch cards?) that always annoyed me.</p><p>I will give BASIC one thing - it's basic geometric drawing library was really easy to use. Problem is, we NEVER USED IT except as a "hey, so this is how you use it, now we're never going to talk about it again." Might as well have learned LOGO (which I had taken as well, turtles were awesome and provided a good intro to iteration even if it was never described as such in class.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I maintain that Python can do this much more easily due to the fact that there are simply fewer ridiculous syntax requirements in a simpler to read format .
The things you learn in BASIC can be taught at a much more significant level in Python ( inline AND block comments , order of instructions , basic control structures , variables and their use ) without jumping through the hoops that you will in BASIC .
Python 's use of whitespace and extensibility allow beginners with an aptitude to expand on their knowledge easily by making simple inferences about how some control structures work ( Python has an excellent for loop implementation ) .Python does not require classes , can be used as an imperative language , and can provide subroutines in the form of other functions easily simply be defining it in the environment ( which is not a difficult concept to grasp , " the computer needs to be told that it can use it " will suffice for beginners which is true enough ) .Basically , Python can provide all the same benefits as BASIC without the stupid unnecessary crap ( Explicit Line numbers ?
Really ? Are we still using punch cards ?
) that always annoyed me.I will give BASIC one thing - it 's basic geometric drawing library was really easy to use .
Problem is , we NEVER USED IT except as a " hey , so this is how you use it , now we 're never going to talk about it again .
" Might as well have learned LOGO ( which I had taken as well , turtles were awesome and provided a good intro to iteration even if it was never described as such in class .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I maintain that Python can do this much more easily due to the fact that there are simply fewer ridiculous syntax requirements in a simpler to read format.
The things you learn in BASIC can be taught at a much more significant level in Python (inline AND block comments, order of instructions, basic control structures, variables and their use) without jumping through the hoops that you will in BASIC.
Python's use of whitespace and extensibility allow beginners with an aptitude to expand on their knowledge easily by making simple inferences about how some control structures work (Python has an excellent for loop implementation) .Python does not require classes, can be used as an imperative language, and can provide subroutines in the form of other functions easily simply be defining it in the environment (which is not a difficult concept to grasp, "the computer needs to be told that it can use it" will suffice for beginners which is true enough).Basically, Python can provide all the same benefits as BASIC without the stupid unnecessary crap (Explicit Line numbers?
Really? Are we still using punch cards?
) that always annoyed me.I will give BASIC one thing - it's basic geometric drawing library was really easy to use.
Problem is, we NEVER USED IT except as a "hey, so this is how you use it, now we're never going to talk about it again.
" Might as well have learned LOGO (which I had taken as well, turtles were awesome and provided a good intro to iteration even if it was never described as such in class.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31430088</id>
	<title>irrelevant</title>
	<author>PJ6</author>
	<datestamp>1268254620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nearly all the people I'm hiring now have never touched the original BASIC, and those who have are usually valuable (and expensive) because of their long experience. So from the point of view of career evaluation the question is totally moot. And should people should be introduced to programming with BASIC? Is this even a question? Nobody's doing this. Nobody uses it any more. Why was this even posted?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nearly all the people I 'm hiring now have never touched the original BASIC , and those who have are usually valuable ( and expensive ) because of their long experience .
So from the point of view of career evaluation the question is totally moot .
And should people should be introduced to programming with BASIC ?
Is this even a question ?
Nobody 's doing this .
Nobody uses it any more .
Why was this even posted ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nearly all the people I'm hiring now have never touched the original BASIC, and those who have are usually valuable (and expensive) because of their long experience.
So from the point of view of career evaluation the question is totally moot.
And should people should be introduced to programming with BASIC?
Is this even a question?
Nobody's doing this.
Nobody uses it any more.
Why was this even posted?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424942</id>
	<title>Re:Bah</title>
	<author>clickety6</author>
	<datestamp>1268228820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Like all eminently quotable people, Dijkstra tended to hyperbole and oversimplification."</p><p>Surely you meant:</p><p>
&nbsp; "Like all outstanding, amazingly prominent, extremely eminently quotable people, the immortal and infallible Dijkstra tended to massively over-exaggerated hyperbole and leaving out too many difficult bits."-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Like all eminently quotable people , Dijkstra tended to hyperbole and oversimplification .
" Surely you meant :   " Like all outstanding , amazingly prominent , extremely eminently quotable people , the immortal and infallible Dijkstra tended to massively over-exaggerated hyperbole and leaving out too many difficult bits .
" -</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Like all eminently quotable people, Dijkstra tended to hyperbole and oversimplification.
"Surely you meant:
  "Like all outstanding, amazingly prominent, extremely eminently quotable people, the immortal and infallible Dijkstra tended to massively over-exaggerated hyperbole and leaving out too many difficult bits.
"-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31430004</id>
	<title>Get off my lawn.</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1268254260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article seems to be saying everyone ought to use a crappy ancient tool so as to excersize their mental muscles to be able to use the crappy modern tools that are prevalent for now.  Because the size of the programmer's skull is limited and will not be getting an upgrade anytime soon, eventually progress will stagnate long enough because of programmers running up against this law of nature for someone with a really good idea about how to do things to catch up and overtake the herd of programmers who have become proficient at producing crappy code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article seems to be saying everyone ought to use a crappy ancient tool so as to excersize their mental muscles to be able to use the crappy modern tools that are prevalent for now .
Because the size of the programmer 's skull is limited and will not be getting an upgrade anytime soon , eventually progress will stagnate long enough because of programmers running up against this law of nature for someone with a really good idea about how to do things to catch up and overtake the herd of programmers who have become proficient at producing crappy code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article seems to be saying everyone ought to use a crappy ancient tool so as to excersize their mental muscles to be able to use the crappy modern tools that are prevalent for now.
Because the size of the programmer's skull is limited and will not be getting an upgrade anytime soon, eventually progress will stagnate long enough because of programmers running up against this law of nature for someone with a really good idea about how to do things to catch up and overtake the herd of programmers who have become proficient at producing crappy code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424420</id>
	<title>Value of BASIC right now = 0</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268220480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are plenty of scripting languages right now - use one of them. What is it with all this archaic non-c love?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are plenty of scripting languages right now - use one of them .
What is it with all this archaic non-c love ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are plenty of scripting languages right now - use one of them.
What is it with all this archaic non-c love?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424760</id>
	<title>Another BBC BASIC comment</title>
	<author>jregel</author>
	<datestamp>1268226240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It never ceases to make me smile that any discussion about BASIC invariably brings BBC BASIC fans out of the woodwork, and I'll add myself to that list.</p><p>To be honest, BBC BASIC spoilt me. I was familiar with the concepts of using procedures and functions, but never progressed to the built in assembler. The thing is that BBC BASIC and the sheer power (for the time) of the MOS (operating system) was so far advanced of the other 8bit machines available at the time. I then moved to the 32bit Acorn Archimedes range which also features BBC BASIC. So, when I got my first PC it was a complete shock - there was QBASIC, but it didn't work the same way and seemed far more limited. It didn't integrate so elegantly with the operating system.</p><p>For me, BBC BASIC and the MOS is a truly amazing piece of work and went with a truly revolutionary piece of the hardware. As an example, the BBC B hardware (the most common computer to run BBC BASIC in the early 80s) has a built in floppy disk drive port, parallel and serial, a programmable ADC port, a digital "User" port for controlling mice etc, a 1Mhz(!) bus for controlling other devices such as sound synthesisers, the ability to add an Econet module to create a local network and the "Tube", an interface/protocol for interfacing with a second processor (the first ARM processor was designed using the Tube interface). How many other 8bit machines in the early 80s could do any of that? The operating system also supported paged RAM/ROM and a very sophisticated display driver (called "VDU") where screen co-ordinates mapped to a virtual screen resolution, effectively allowing your routines to be resolution independent.</p><p>If you have an interest in old computers, or elegant design, but have never played with a BBC or even a BBC Emulator, you owe it to yourself to track one down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It never ceases to make me smile that any discussion about BASIC invariably brings BBC BASIC fans out of the woodwork , and I 'll add myself to that list.To be honest , BBC BASIC spoilt me .
I was familiar with the concepts of using procedures and functions , but never progressed to the built in assembler .
The thing is that BBC BASIC and the sheer power ( for the time ) of the MOS ( operating system ) was so far advanced of the other 8bit machines available at the time .
I then moved to the 32bit Acorn Archimedes range which also features BBC BASIC .
So , when I got my first PC it was a complete shock - there was QBASIC , but it did n't work the same way and seemed far more limited .
It did n't integrate so elegantly with the operating system.For me , BBC BASIC and the MOS is a truly amazing piece of work and went with a truly revolutionary piece of the hardware .
As an example , the BBC B hardware ( the most common computer to run BBC BASIC in the early 80s ) has a built in floppy disk drive port , parallel and serial , a programmable ADC port , a digital " User " port for controlling mice etc , a 1Mhz ( !
) bus for controlling other devices such as sound synthesisers , the ability to add an Econet module to create a local network and the " Tube " , an interface/protocol for interfacing with a second processor ( the first ARM processor was designed using the Tube interface ) .
How many other 8bit machines in the early 80s could do any of that ?
The operating system also supported paged RAM/ROM and a very sophisticated display driver ( called " VDU " ) where screen co-ordinates mapped to a virtual screen resolution , effectively allowing your routines to be resolution independent.If you have an interest in old computers , or elegant design , but have never played with a BBC or even a BBC Emulator , you owe it to yourself to track one down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It never ceases to make me smile that any discussion about BASIC invariably brings BBC BASIC fans out of the woodwork, and I'll add myself to that list.To be honest, BBC BASIC spoilt me.
I was familiar with the concepts of using procedures and functions, but never progressed to the built in assembler.
The thing is that BBC BASIC and the sheer power (for the time) of the MOS (operating system) was so far advanced of the other 8bit machines available at the time.
I then moved to the 32bit Acorn Archimedes range which also features BBC BASIC.
So, when I got my first PC it was a complete shock - there was QBASIC, but it didn't work the same way and seemed far more limited.
It didn't integrate so elegantly with the operating system.For me, BBC BASIC and the MOS is a truly amazing piece of work and went with a truly revolutionary piece of the hardware.
As an example, the BBC B hardware (the most common computer to run BBC BASIC in the early 80s) has a built in floppy disk drive port, parallel and serial, a programmable ADC port, a digital "User" port for controlling mice etc, a 1Mhz(!
) bus for controlling other devices such as sound synthesisers, the ability to add an Econet module to create a local network and the "Tube", an interface/protocol for interfacing with a second processor (the first ARM processor was designed using the Tube interface).
How many other 8bit machines in the early 80s could do any of that?
The operating system also supported paged RAM/ROM and a very sophisticated display driver (called "VDU") where screen co-ordinates mapped to a virtual screen resolution, effectively allowing your routines to be resolution independent.If you have an interest in old computers, or elegant design, but have never played with a BBC or even a BBC Emulator, you owe it to yourself to track one down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425698</id>
	<title>BASIC was so horrible I learned assembler....</title>
	<author>gweihir</author>
	<datestamp>1268234280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And then Pascal and C. Quite frankly BASIC is very well suited as an example on how not to design a programming language, as its flaws are glaringly obvious. (Java, which is just about as bad, requires much more effort and experience to find and understand its problems.) That makes BASIC an ideal first language to move on from after about a few weeks or so. Those that are comfortable with BASIC and do not want to move on even after a few months should probably be considered unfit to become programmers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then Pascal and C. Quite frankly BASIC is very well suited as an example on how not to design a programming language , as its flaws are glaringly obvious .
( Java , which is just about as bad , requires much more effort and experience to find and understand its problems .
) That makes BASIC an ideal first language to move on from after about a few weeks or so .
Those that are comfortable with BASIC and do not want to move on even after a few months should probably be considered unfit to become programmers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then Pascal and C. Quite frankly BASIC is very well suited as an example on how not to design a programming language, as its flaws are glaringly obvious.
(Java, which is just about as bad, requires much more effort and experience to find and understand its problems.
) That makes BASIC an ideal first language to move on from after about a few weeks or so.
Those that are comfortable with BASIC and do not want to move on even after a few months should probably be considered unfit to become programmers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423896</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is great for kids</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268212260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For some kids. I remember fighting against it when I was maybe 10. I was by far the best in my class in math and physics, and I remember being really pissed off that others picked it up so easily.</p><p>When I tought myself C (yes, using ``The C Programming Language'' by K&amp;R), I was in heaven. Somehow, it made sense. Grasping things like structures, classes, polymorphism, dynamic vs. static memory allocation and so on is what made it logical and interesting.</p><p>All in all, it really depends on the character. This is why some people end up studying biology and some computer science, for example, or why people have such different opinions on BASIC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For some kids .
I remember fighting against it when I was maybe 10 .
I was by far the best in my class in math and physics , and I remember being really pissed off that others picked it up so easily.When I tought myself C ( yes , using ` ` The C Programming Language' ' by K&amp;R ) , I was in heaven .
Somehow , it made sense .
Grasping things like structures , classes , polymorphism , dynamic vs. static memory allocation and so on is what made it logical and interesting.All in all , it really depends on the character .
This is why some people end up studying biology and some computer science , for example , or why people have such different opinions on BASIC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some kids.
I remember fighting against it when I was maybe 10.
I was by far the best in my class in math and physics, and I remember being really pissed off that others picked it up so easily.When I tought myself C (yes, using ``The C Programming Language'' by K&amp;R), I was in heaven.
Somehow, it made sense.
Grasping things like structures, classes, polymorphism, dynamic vs. static memory allocation and so on is what made it logical and interesting.All in all, it really depends on the character.
This is why some people end up studying biology and some computer science, for example, or why people have such different opinions on BASIC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424966</id>
	<title>learn assembly and you'll know the why of basic</title>
	<author>mondotom</author>
	<datestamp>1268229120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those that ventured into assembler will understand the goto and line nums of early Basic</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those that ventured into assembler will understand the goto and line nums of early Basic</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those that ventured into assembler will understand the goto and line nums of early Basic</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423988</id>
	<title>What Dijkstra meant was:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268213580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I (like to) think Dijkstra meant, when he issued his famous quote, was probably a lot more like:</p><p>"Programmers who learned BASIC first can't really be coaxed away from thinking that all languages should be as easy as this."</p><p>Trying to convince a BASIC programmer that they should understand CPU Instructions, Registers, or hell, even pointers, or why you should end a statement with a semicolon, is hard to teach a programmer for whom UP UNTIL NOW, THE COMPILER (or runtime) DID IT FOR THEM.</p><p>Anything else seems like a step backwards. And hence, they do not respect the more elementary languages. "Really," they think, "is it so hard for the compiler to manage my memory allocation for me, when my $400 1978 micro can do it when I program it in BASIC?"</p><p>A well-educated programmer has since learned that programming is, in essence, understanding how to get the machine to perform a task; and, that, while there are different ways of asking, only a certain exact way will ultimately be understood by the machine. And you might as well know the exact way, since any problems will be related to that exact instruction (or lack thereof), and it is also obviously optimal in terms of effort (both for you, and the machine).</p><p>Dijkstra was commenting more on how children who learned to program on simple BASIC micros didn't usually grasp the new expectations of the compilers when they were writing for things such as mainframes. But, on the other hand, why DO you have to manage your own memory, still? The imperious little bastards who refused to learn anything that requires them to know more about the machine than BASIC required, well, they did have a point. In fact, in many more modern languages - like the recent Google Go - you mostly don't have to concern yourself with things like memory allocation.</p><p>Dijkstra was right, but he was also wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I ( like to ) think Dijkstra meant , when he issued his famous quote , was probably a lot more like : " Programmers who learned BASIC first ca n't really be coaxed away from thinking that all languages should be as easy as this .
" Trying to convince a BASIC programmer that they should understand CPU Instructions , Registers , or hell , even pointers , or why you should end a statement with a semicolon , is hard to teach a programmer for whom UP UNTIL NOW , THE COMPILER ( or runtime ) DID IT FOR THEM.Anything else seems like a step backwards .
And hence , they do not respect the more elementary languages .
" Really , " they think , " is it so hard for the compiler to manage my memory allocation for me , when my $ 400 1978 micro can do it when I program it in BASIC ?
" A well-educated programmer has since learned that programming is , in essence , understanding how to get the machine to perform a task ; and , that , while there are different ways of asking , only a certain exact way will ultimately be understood by the machine .
And you might as well know the exact way , since any problems will be related to that exact instruction ( or lack thereof ) , and it is also obviously optimal in terms of effort ( both for you , and the machine ) .Dijkstra was commenting more on how children who learned to program on simple BASIC micros did n't usually grasp the new expectations of the compilers when they were writing for things such as mainframes .
But , on the other hand , why DO you have to manage your own memory , still ?
The imperious little bastards who refused to learn anything that requires them to know more about the machine than BASIC required , well , they did have a point .
In fact , in many more modern languages - like the recent Google Go - you mostly do n't have to concern yourself with things like memory allocation.Dijkstra was right , but he was also wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I (like to) think Dijkstra meant, when he issued his famous quote, was probably a lot more like:"Programmers who learned BASIC first can't really be coaxed away from thinking that all languages should be as easy as this.
"Trying to convince a BASIC programmer that they should understand CPU Instructions, Registers, or hell, even pointers, or why you should end a statement with a semicolon, is hard to teach a programmer for whom UP UNTIL NOW, THE COMPILER (or runtime) DID IT FOR THEM.Anything else seems like a step backwards.
And hence, they do not respect the more elementary languages.
"Really," they think, "is it so hard for the compiler to manage my memory allocation for me, when my $400 1978 micro can do it when I program it in BASIC?
"A well-educated programmer has since learned that programming is, in essence, understanding how to get the machine to perform a task; and, that, while there are different ways of asking, only a certain exact way will ultimately be understood by the machine.
And you might as well know the exact way, since any problems will be related to that exact instruction (or lack thereof), and it is also obviously optimal in terms of effort (both for you, and the machine).Dijkstra was commenting more on how children who learned to program on simple BASIC micros didn't usually grasp the new expectations of the compilers when they were writing for things such as mainframes.
But, on the other hand, why DO you have to manage your own memory, still?
The imperious little bastards who refused to learn anything that requires them to know more about the machine than BASIC required, well, they did have a point.
In fact, in many more modern languages - like the recent Google Go - you mostly don't have to concern yourself with things like memory allocation.Dijkstra was right, but he was also wrong.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425614</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268233800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>it seems to me that writing logical code that uses GOTO statements would be a good introduction to computer logic.</i></p><p>I'll agree with Dijkstra to a point -- BASIC makes it harder to learn <i>modern high level languages</i> like C or Java. BASIC is more like assembly than it is like C; there's little difference between JMP FF37 and GOTO 100.</p><p>Now, if they're talking about Visual Basic, I'll agree with Dijkstra, that language is an abomination and should never be foisted on anyone.</p><p>I do databases at work, and used to use dBase and Clipper for small datasets, NOMAD for big datasets that required the mainframe. I loved those languages; I could make the computer do almost anything, and write the code with minimal effort. Now I'm mostly using MS Access, and I absofuckinglutely HATE it. I don't even consider it "programming".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it seems to me that writing logical code that uses GOTO statements would be a good introduction to computer logic.I 'll agree with Dijkstra to a point -- BASIC makes it harder to learn modern high level languages like C or Java .
BASIC is more like assembly than it is like C ; there 's little difference between JMP FF37 and GOTO 100.Now , if they 're talking about Visual Basic , I 'll agree with Dijkstra , that language is an abomination and should never be foisted on anyone.I do databases at work , and used to use dBase and Clipper for small datasets , NOMAD for big datasets that required the mainframe .
I loved those languages ; I could make the computer do almost anything , and write the code with minimal effort .
Now I 'm mostly using MS Access , and I absofuckinglutely HATE it .
I do n't even consider it " programming " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it seems to me that writing logical code that uses GOTO statements would be a good introduction to computer logic.I'll agree with Dijkstra to a point -- BASIC makes it harder to learn modern high level languages like C or Java.
BASIC is more like assembly than it is like C; there's little difference between JMP FF37 and GOTO 100.Now, if they're talking about Visual Basic, I'll agree with Dijkstra, that language is an abomination and should never be foisted on anyone.I do databases at work, and used to use dBase and Clipper for small datasets, NOMAD for big datasets that required the mainframe.
I loved those languages; I could make the computer do almost anything, and write the code with minimal effort.
Now I'm mostly using MS Access, and I absofuckinglutely HATE it.
I don't even consider it "programming".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424228</id>
	<title>Re:Funny argument</title>
	<author>pinkstuff</author>
	<datestamp>1268216760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I completely agree. As with most things, learning how NOT to do things is often as important as learning how to do things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree .
As with most things , learning how NOT to do things is often as important as learning how to do things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree.
As with most things, learning how NOT to do things is often as important as learning how to do things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423812</id>
	<title>It's not the language, it's the teacher</title>
	<author>willoughby</author>
	<datestamp>1268254560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most folks who have learned C++ learned it in a classroom with a real teacher. Most folks who learned BASIC learned by banging away on a computer keyboard at home.<br><br>Most people aren't very good at teaching themselves. I've seen this a lot with people trying to learn Morse code and giving up in frustration.<br><br>You can pick up a lot of bad habits without someone to guide you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most folks who have learned C + + learned it in a classroom with a real teacher .
Most folks who learned BASIC learned by banging away on a computer keyboard at home.Most people are n't very good at teaching themselves .
I 've seen this a lot with people trying to learn Morse code and giving up in frustration.You can pick up a lot of bad habits without someone to guide you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most folks who have learned C++ learned it in a classroom with a real teacher.
Most folks who learned BASIC learned by banging away on a computer keyboard at home.Most people aren't very good at teaching themselves.
I've seen this a lot with people trying to learn Morse code and giving up in frustration.You can pick up a lot of bad habits without someone to guide you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423710</id>
	<title>as noted above</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268253420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was #1, the top banana, programmer for assembly, C, pascal, fortran and many more even ada, extremely well paid on route 9. Learned programming with a sinclair zx-81. then went to college to be a computer engineer. Go Figure!<br>If you cant program in basic, you cannot be a programmer, or an engineer for that matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was # 1 , the top banana , programmer for assembly , C , pascal , fortran and many more even ada , extremely well paid on route 9 .
Learned programming with a sinclair zx-81 .
then went to college to be a computer engineer .
Go Figure ! If you cant program in basic , you can not be a programmer , or an engineer for that matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was #1, the top banana, programmer for assembly, C, pascal, fortran and many more even ada, extremely well paid on route 9.
Learned programming with a sinclair zx-81.
then went to college to be a computer engineer.
Go Figure!If you cant program in basic, you cannot be a programmer, or an engineer for that matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423904</id>
	<title>Dyslexic programmer</title>
	<author>GuyFawkes</author>
	<datestamp>1268212320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the day I used basic a LOT, arguably like a sophisticated calculator programming language to do engineering calculations.</p><p>Show me a page of PHP even and everything goes blurry and out of focus.</p><p>That's dyslexia for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the day I used basic a LOT , arguably like a sophisticated calculator programming language to do engineering calculations.Show me a page of PHP even and everything goes blurry and out of focus.That 's dyslexia for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the day I used basic a LOT, arguably like a sophisticated calculator programming language to do engineering calculations.Show me a page of PHP even and everything goes blurry and out of focus.That's dyslexia for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426372</id>
	<title>Re:Dijkstra ? Legend ?</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1268237640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you sort of have to cultivate your own myth if you want to become famous. There are a lot of brilliant people out there who most people have never heard of. Dijkstra made great contributions to computer science and programming, but to say that that is what made him famous belittles the work of all those others who did so, too. He was famous because he made great contributions \_and\_ worked on his visibility.</p><p>Being famous is not one of my goals, so I don't engage in a lot of activities that would raise my visibility. In fact, I sometimes feel I work on my visibility too little - other people get asked for things that I would have been a better fit for, simply because people know them and not me. On the other hand, I don't claim to be anywhere near as good as Dijkstra. He changed the world in a way that I likely never will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you sort of have to cultivate your own myth if you want to become famous .
There are a lot of brilliant people out there who most people have never heard of .
Dijkstra made great contributions to computer science and programming , but to say that that is what made him famous belittles the work of all those others who did so , too .
He was famous because he made great contributions \ _and \ _ worked on his visibility.Being famous is not one of my goals , so I do n't engage in a lot of activities that would raise my visibility .
In fact , I sometimes feel I work on my visibility too little - other people get asked for things that I would have been a better fit for , simply because people know them and not me .
On the other hand , I do n't claim to be anywhere near as good as Dijkstra .
He changed the world in a way that I likely never will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you sort of have to cultivate your own myth if you want to become famous.
There are a lot of brilliant people out there who most people have never heard of.
Dijkstra made great contributions to computer science and programming, but to say that that is what made him famous belittles the work of all those others who did so, too.
He was famous because he made great contributions \_and\_ worked on his visibility.Being famous is not one of my goals, so I don't engage in a lot of activities that would raise my visibility.
In fact, I sometimes feel I work on my visibility too little - other people get asked for things that I would have been a better fit for, simply because people know them and not me.
On the other hand, I don't claim to be anywhere near as good as Dijkstra.
He changed the world in a way that I likely never will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423960</id>
	<title>Re:Variety</title>
	<author>vikingpower</author>
	<datestamp>1268213040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen at your last phrase. If it takes Rebol to perform a certain task, then heck - let's use Rebol ! If the next assignment is best done in ADA - well, why not ?</p><p>I once had a boss, a very good manager, one of those who had crept up the scales from electronics engineer to vice-president. He had only one test to submit candidates for software engineering positions to. It was about designing an algorithm, and therefore language-independent. You could answer with pseudo-code, Java, C, or with an outline of your algorithm in French. Invariably, it would expose your ways of thinking. Still the best test for prospective programmers I've ever seen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen at your last phrase .
If it takes Rebol to perform a certain task , then heck - let 's use Rebol !
If the next assignment is best done in ADA - well , why not ? I once had a boss , a very good manager , one of those who had crept up the scales from electronics engineer to vice-president .
He had only one test to submit candidates for software engineering positions to .
It was about designing an algorithm , and therefore language-independent .
You could answer with pseudo-code , Java , C , or with an outline of your algorithm in French .
Invariably , it would expose your ways of thinking .
Still the best test for prospective programmers I 've ever seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen at your last phrase.
If it takes Rebol to perform a certain task, then heck - let's use Rebol !
If the next assignment is best done in ADA - well, why not ?I once had a boss, a very good manager, one of those who had crept up the scales from electronics engineer to vice-president.
He had only one test to submit candidates for software engineering positions to.
It was about designing an algorithm, and therefore language-independent.
You could answer with pseudo-code, Java, C, or with an outline of your algorithm in French.
Invariably, it would expose your ways of thinking.
Still the best test for prospective programmers I've ever seen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424976</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1268229300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*shrug*<br>I never found myself in need of use GOTO.</p><p>Sometimes I wished `break` could take argument of how many levels it should break out of, but usually abstracting the entry to a function and replacing break with return fixed that.</p><p>Sometimes I found myself writing:</p><p>do {<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....<br>if(something) continue;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>if(something\_else) break;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>} while(0);</p><p>but it was a rare crutch and it still kept scopes clear. No ability to jump into middle of a loop without initialization.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* shrug * I never found myself in need of use GOTO.Sometimes I wished ` break ` could take argument of how many levels it should break out of , but usually abstracting the entry to a function and replacing break with return fixed that.Sometimes I found myself writing : do { ....if ( something ) continue ; ...if ( something \ _else ) break ; ... } while ( 0 ) ; but it was a rare crutch and it still kept scopes clear .
No ability to jump into middle of a loop without initialization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*shrug*I never found myself in need of use GOTO.Sometimes I wished `break` could take argument of how many levels it should break out of, but usually abstracting the entry to a function and replacing break with return fixed that.Sometimes I found myself writing:do { ....if(something) continue; ...if(something\_else) break; ...} while(0);but it was a rare crutch and it still kept scopes clear.
No ability to jump into middle of a loop without initialization.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428074</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is irrelevant</title>
	<author>thebagel</author>
	<datestamp>1268245140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Southern Illinois University Edwardsville.  CS140, CS150 sequence uses C++.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Southern Illinois University Edwardsville .
CS140 , CS150 sequence uses C + + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Southern Illinois University Edwardsville.
CS140, CS150 sequence uses C++.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427116</id>
	<title>Re:It's not the language, it's the teacher</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268240820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many "real teachers" aren't that good teaching others, and more often than not, have superficial knowledge of the tool they're teaching. I've seen 16 year old kids with more grasp of good programming habits and what should and shuldn't be done than many teachers. Also, it should be noted that many teachers have zero real-life experience in actual programming, so they really aren't a good metric.<br>As of bad habits go, I see people picking bad habits in social context with other people, not staying at home. You are right when you say many people aren't very good at teaching themselves, but they still far away from not being able to grasp somewhat simple concepts (syntax, structure and good practices are actually pretty simple concepts - most spoken languages have a higher degree of complexity).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many " real teachers " are n't that good teaching others , and more often than not , have superficial knowledge of the tool they 're teaching .
I 've seen 16 year old kids with more grasp of good programming habits and what should and shuld n't be done than many teachers .
Also , it should be noted that many teachers have zero real-life experience in actual programming , so they really are n't a good metric.As of bad habits go , I see people picking bad habits in social context with other people , not staying at home .
You are right when you say many people are n't very good at teaching themselves , but they still far away from not being able to grasp somewhat simple concepts ( syntax , structure and good practices are actually pretty simple concepts - most spoken languages have a higher degree of complexity ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many "real teachers" aren't that good teaching others, and more often than not, have superficial knowledge of the tool they're teaching.
I've seen 16 year old kids with more grasp of good programming habits and what should and shuldn't be done than many teachers.
Also, it should be noted that many teachers have zero real-life experience in actual programming, so they really aren't a good metric.As of bad habits go, I see people picking bad habits in social context with other people, not staying at home.
You are right when you say many people aren't very good at teaching themselves, but they still far away from not being able to grasp somewhat simple concepts (syntax, structure and good practices are actually pretty simple concepts - most spoken languages have a higher degree of complexity).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427082</id>
	<title>Proof</title>
	<author>gyrogeerloose</author>
	<datestamp>1268240700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I learned to program on an Atari 800 using BASIC. Now I can't code my way out of a paper bag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I learned to program on an Atari 800 using BASIC .
Now I ca n't code my way out of a paper bag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I learned to program on an Atari 800 using BASIC.
Now I can't code my way out of a paper bag.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424468</id>
	<title>Re:Appreciate the difference</title>
	<author>Corporate Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1268220960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Similar thing for me. Started on BASIC (with the numbered lines, indeed) and then when I discovered Turbo Pascal, I was liberated.  BASIC just always felt limited.  All because of my dad who showed me BASIC first, because I wanted to calculate stuff, and something like "calc.exe" didn't exist.  He showed me "PRINT 10+10" and I was sold.  Later when he saw I was programming, he bought me a Turbo Pascal book.  Ah, those were the times.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Similar thing for me .
Started on BASIC ( with the numbered lines , indeed ) and then when I discovered Turbo Pascal , I was liberated .
BASIC just always felt limited .
All because of my dad who showed me BASIC first , because I wanted to calculate stuff , and something like " calc.exe " did n't exist .
He showed me " PRINT 10 + 10 " and I was sold .
Later when he saw I was programming , he bought me a Turbo Pascal book .
Ah , those were the times .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Similar thing for me.
Started on BASIC (with the numbered lines, indeed) and then when I discovered Turbo Pascal, I was liberated.
BASIC just always felt limited.
All because of my dad who showed me BASIC first, because I wanted to calculate stuff, and something like "calc.exe" didn't exist.
He showed me "PRINT 10+10" and I was sold.
Later when he saw I was programming, he bought me a Turbo Pascal book.
Ah, those were the times.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423928</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is irrelevant</title>
	<author>someone1234</author>
	<datestamp>1268212560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends on your age when you start learning. I was 12 when i first met "programming", it was a TI programmable calculator. It was fun to squeeze as much functionality as possible from less than 1K Basic. Then came C64, with its ~38K Basic. Its Basic was very weak, but i learned how to read disassembly when i read the code of various Basic extensions and read books that contained snippets on extending C64 basics. Eventually i made my own Basic extension, cracked games to create trainers, made an own turbo loader that had half of its code on the floppy drive. So, by the time i went to mid school, i programmed device drivers in machine code!<br>I learned PL/I and other archaic languages in mid school, even punch cards! I learned C on my own and was taught in it only by the time i went to high school.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on your age when you start learning .
I was 12 when i first met " programming " , it was a TI programmable calculator .
It was fun to squeeze as much functionality as possible from less than 1K Basic .
Then came C64 , with its ~ 38K Basic .
Its Basic was very weak , but i learned how to read disassembly when i read the code of various Basic extensions and read books that contained snippets on extending C64 basics .
Eventually i made my own Basic extension , cracked games to create trainers , made an own turbo loader that had half of its code on the floppy drive .
So , by the time i went to mid school , i programmed device drivers in machine code ! I learned PL/I and other archaic languages in mid school , even punch cards !
I learned C on my own and was taught in it only by the time i went to high school .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on your age when you start learning.
I was 12 when i first met "programming", it was a TI programmable calculator.
It was fun to squeeze as much functionality as possible from less than 1K Basic.
Then came C64, with its ~38K Basic.
Its Basic was very weak, but i learned how to read disassembly when i read the code of various Basic extensions and read books that contained snippets on extending C64 basics.
Eventually i made my own Basic extension, cracked games to create trainers, made an own turbo loader that had half of its code on the floppy drive.
So, by the time i went to mid school, i programmed device drivers in machine code!I learned PL/I and other archaic languages in mid school, even punch cards!
I learned C on my own and was taught in it only by the time i went to high school.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424120</id>
	<title>It doesn't matter what you start with ...</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1268215440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... just so long as you start.
<p>
OK, BASIC might not be the prettiest language in the world and it has some features which make it hard to maintain IN A PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT. However, for kids playing at home wDijkstrahere the half-life of a piece of code is measured in days, it provides an easy entry with a smallish learning curve. Just like you start off playing with Meccano, you aren't expected to become a professional engineer and build bridges from it (though it has been done) but it does let people develop a love of engineering.
</p><p>
I have read a lot of Dijkstra's work. He's basically an academic who's writing is intended to impress other academics with it's insight, theoretical accuracy and idealism. As a practical basis for doing real-world projects, it falls a long way short.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... just so long as you start .
OK , BASIC might not be the prettiest language in the world and it has some features which make it hard to maintain IN A PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT .
However , for kids playing at home wDijkstrahere the half-life of a piece of code is measured in days , it provides an easy entry with a smallish learning curve .
Just like you start off playing with Meccano , you are n't expected to become a professional engineer and build bridges from it ( though it has been done ) but it does let people develop a love of engineering .
I have read a lot of Dijkstra 's work .
He 's basically an academic who 's writing is intended to impress other academics with it 's insight , theoretical accuracy and idealism .
As a practical basis for doing real-world projects , it falls a long way short .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... just so long as you start.
OK, BASIC might not be the prettiest language in the world and it has some features which make it hard to maintain IN A PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT.
However, for kids playing at home wDijkstrahere the half-life of a piece of code is measured in days, it provides an easy entry with a smallish learning curve.
Just like you start off playing with Meccano, you aren't expected to become a professional engineer and build bridges from it (though it has been done) but it does let people develop a love of engineering.
I have read a lot of Dijkstra's work.
He's basically an academic who's writing is intended to impress other academics with it's insight, theoretical accuracy and idealism.
As a practical basis for doing real-world projects, it falls a long way short.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31430620</id>
	<title>Mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration</title>
	<author>Chess Piece Face</author>
	<datestamp>1268214000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Terry Schaivo called.  She said "................"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Terry Schaivo called .
She said " ................ "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terry Schaivo called.
She said "................"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428496</id>
	<title>Re:Funny argument</title>
	<author>c++0xFF</author>
	<datestamp>1268247360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alternative theory: Programmers who've learned in BASIC must learn how to work around its limitations.</p><p>The ability to surpass the language itself makes for great programmers.  Case in point: assembly language, especially simple ones like PIC.  Learning how to create if/then/else, while, for, switch, and other constructs from the very limiting "test and skip next if zero" instruction is very educational.</p><p>Spaghetti code is not inevitable when limited to GOTO.  An organized mind will find ways to create meaningful code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alternative theory : Programmers who 've learned in BASIC must learn how to work around its limitations.The ability to surpass the language itself makes for great programmers .
Case in point : assembly language , especially simple ones like PIC .
Learning how to create if/then/else , while , for , switch , and other constructs from the very limiting " test and skip next if zero " instruction is very educational.Spaghetti code is not inevitable when limited to GOTO .
An organized mind will find ways to create meaningful code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alternative theory: Programmers who've learned in BASIC must learn how to work around its limitations.The ability to surpass the language itself makes for great programmers.
Case in point: assembly language, especially simple ones like PIC.
Learning how to create if/then/else, while, for, switch, and other constructs from the very limiting "test and skip next if zero" instruction is very educational.Spaghetti code is not inevitable when limited to GOTO.
An organized mind will find ways to create meaningful code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424360</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is irrelevant</title>
	<author>dakameleon</author>
	<datestamp>1268219520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When was anyone introducing languages to students at 13? There's bound to be a significant chunk of us out there who poked around our computers and went to find these things out ourselves. BASIC just kinda sold itself with the name - you knew it was a good starting point. Self-discovery and a curious mind is probably outdated in the corporatised world, in spite of the roots of many of us who learnt by screwing up an autoexec.bat file or two on Dad's computer. Nothing teaches you to pre-check your logic than having to explain to Dad why his computer doesn't work any more<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When was anyone introducing languages to students at 13 ?
There 's bound to be a significant chunk of us out there who poked around our computers and went to find these things out ourselves .
BASIC just kinda sold itself with the name - you knew it was a good starting point .
Self-discovery and a curious mind is probably outdated in the corporatised world , in spite of the roots of many of us who learnt by screwing up an autoexec.bat file or two on Dad 's computer .
Nothing teaches you to pre-check your logic than having to explain to Dad why his computer does n't work any more : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When was anyone introducing languages to students at 13?
There's bound to be a significant chunk of us out there who poked around our computers and went to find these things out ourselves.
BASIC just kinda sold itself with the name - you knew it was a good starting point.
Self-discovery and a curious mind is probably outdated in the corporatised world, in spite of the roots of many of us who learnt by screwing up an autoexec.bat file or two on Dad's computer.
Nothing teaches you to pre-check your logic than having to explain to Dad why his computer doesn't work any more :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428776</id>
	<title>Re:Bah!</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268248680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Out of curiosity, how would you implement a linked list using anything in BASIC, given that the language doesn't have pointers, nor any other kind of a first-class pointer-like construct (BYREF arguments are not first-class, as they cannot be used in data structures); nor any way to allocate memory on the heap and manually manage its lifetime?</p><p>I can see how the first part can be worked around using PEEK/POKE, but you still have that problem of allocating memory...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of curiosity , how would you implement a linked list using anything in BASIC , given that the language does n't have pointers , nor any other kind of a first-class pointer-like construct ( BYREF arguments are not first-class , as they can not be used in data structures ) ; nor any way to allocate memory on the heap and manually manage its lifetime ? I can see how the first part can be worked around using PEEK/POKE , but you still have that problem of allocating memory.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of curiosity, how would you implement a linked list using anything in BASIC, given that the language doesn't have pointers, nor any other kind of a first-class pointer-like construct (BYREF arguments are not first-class, as they cannot be used in data structures); nor any way to allocate memory on the heap and manually manage its lifetime?I can see how the first part can be worked around using PEEK/POKE, but you still have that problem of allocating memory...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424880</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is irrelevant</title>
	<author>ZeroExistenZ</author>
	<datestamp>1268228100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was always told my "generation of programmers" would be the last who will be articulate in both procedural and OOP programming and will most of the time or migrate the one to the other, be the last to maintain procedural languages while the next generations will only be schooled to understand OOP-concepts.</p><p>That was the period<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 1.1 was being a horrible pain, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 2.0 was the new promised land after Java (they've took the main concepts, and sortof sweeped the horrible things under the carpet in a VB-like fashion).</p><p>I must say, I've often been the "new guy who refactors the messy monster code nobody is wanting to come near" and haven't seen much full OOP-implemented architectures, mostly an improvisation of a mix of technologies...</p><p>I'm guessing the next generation will be schooled directly in C# as you say... As it teaches OOP-concepts, doesn't have the "transitional and historical workaround", and helps you protect yourself against making too big fuckups.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was always told my " generation of programmers " would be the last who will be articulate in both procedural and OOP programming and will most of the time or migrate the one to the other , be the last to maintain procedural languages while the next generations will only be schooled to understand OOP-concepts.That was the period .NET 1.1 was being a horrible pain , and .NET 2.0 was the new promised land after Java ( they 've took the main concepts , and sortof sweeped the horrible things under the carpet in a VB-like fashion ) .I must say , I 've often been the " new guy who refactors the messy monster code nobody is wanting to come near " and have n't seen much full OOP-implemented architectures , mostly an improvisation of a mix of technologies...I 'm guessing the next generation will be schooled directly in C # as you say... As it teaches OOP-concepts , does n't have the " transitional and historical workaround " , and helps you protect yourself against making too big fuckups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was always told my "generation of programmers" would be the last who will be articulate in both procedural and OOP programming and will most of the time or migrate the one to the other, be the last to maintain procedural languages while the next generations will only be schooled to understand OOP-concepts.That was the period .NET 1.1 was being a horrible pain, and .NET 2.0 was the new promised land after Java (they've took the main concepts, and sortof sweeped the horrible things under the carpet in a VB-like fashion).I must say, I've often been the "new guy who refactors the messy monster code nobody is wanting to come near" and haven't seen much full OOP-implemented architectures, mostly an improvisation of a mix of technologies...I'm guessing the next generation will be schooled directly in C# as you say... As it teaches OOP-concepts, doesn't have the "transitional and historical workaround", and helps you protect yourself against making too big fuckups.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424384</id>
	<title>FORTRAN</title>
	<author>kiddailey</author>
	<datestamp>1268220000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I think I was far more mentally mutilated from my semester of FORTRAN77 than from any form of BASIC.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/shudders</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I think I was far more mentally mutilated from my semester of FORTRAN77 than from any form of BASIC .
/shudders</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I think I was far more mentally mutilated from my semester of FORTRAN77 than from any form of BASIC.
/shudders</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1268253900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. Dijkstra was frequently wrong, especially when he made grand sweeping statements.</p><p>GOTO is a good example, 'GOTO considered harmful' is practically biblical law amongst many programmers, but it's worth remembering that he made that statement in the context of an argument with Donald Knuth. Knuth won: (http://pplab.snu.ac.kr/courses/adv\_pl05/papers/p261-knuth.pdf)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
Dijkstra was frequently wrong , especially when he made grand sweeping statements.GOTO is a good example , 'GOTO considered harmful ' is practically biblical law amongst many programmers , but it 's worth remembering that he made that statement in the context of an argument with Donald Knuth .
Knuth won : ( http : //pplab.snu.ac.kr/courses/adv \ _pl05/papers/p261-knuth.pdf )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
Dijkstra was frequently wrong, especially when he made grand sweeping statements.GOTO is a good example, 'GOTO considered harmful' is practically biblical law amongst many programmers, but it's worth remembering that he made that statement in the context of an argument with Donald Knuth.
Knuth won: (http://pplab.snu.ac.kr/courses/adv\_pl05/papers/p261-knuth.pdf)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423844</id>
	<title>First language doesn't matter</title>
	<author>urusan</author>
	<datestamp>1268211660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first language I learned was Javascript. Well, actually I tried to learn QBASIC but it was just so horrible that I lost interest and nearly didn't become a programmer. I don't think any of that made a difference in the long run.</p><p>What's really important is learning more than just the language you started with. Learning many different ways to express yourself will really get you thinking about problems in a way that is not tethered to the specific syntax of your favorite language (not to mention introduce you to many different features that you might otherwise be ignorant of). Additionally, truly learning those extra languages will generate a lot of mental exercise. How you've spent the bulk of your time is far more important than where you started out.</p><p>Essentially, the author is trying to rationalize his start with BASIC by turning into some sort of advantage...either that or he's joking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first language I learned was Javascript .
Well , actually I tried to learn QBASIC but it was just so horrible that I lost interest and nearly did n't become a programmer .
I do n't think any of that made a difference in the long run.What 's really important is learning more than just the language you started with .
Learning many different ways to express yourself will really get you thinking about problems in a way that is not tethered to the specific syntax of your favorite language ( not to mention introduce you to many different features that you might otherwise be ignorant of ) .
Additionally , truly learning those extra languages will generate a lot of mental exercise .
How you 've spent the bulk of your time is far more important than where you started out.Essentially , the author is trying to rationalize his start with BASIC by turning into some sort of advantage...either that or he 's joking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first language I learned was Javascript.
Well, actually I tried to learn QBASIC but it was just so horrible that I lost interest and nearly didn't become a programmer.
I don't think any of that made a difference in the long run.What's really important is learning more than just the language you started with.
Learning many different ways to express yourself will really get you thinking about problems in a way that is not tethered to the specific syntax of your favorite language (not to mention introduce you to many different features that you might otherwise be ignorant of).
Additionally, truly learning those extra languages will generate a lot of mental exercise.
How you've spent the bulk of your time is far more important than where you started out.Essentially, the author is trying to rationalize his start with BASIC by turning into some sort of advantage...either that or he's joking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425222</id>
	<title>Re:Variety</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268231940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This when I've been a Linux kernel developer for 10+ years now which is 100\% procedural ANSI C. It's all Java they teach nowadays.</p></div><p>To be fair, even so-called "procedural ANSI C" is often coded in an object-oriented style now.  While the language doesn't give you a lot of support for it, if you're using a single data structure (let's call it a "class") and a bunch of functions (let's call them "methods") that only operate on that data structure... well, you just did OO programming.  C++ was originally just syntactic sugar that made this kind of thing easy to express, and then sorta exploded from there.</p><p>If you're doing kernel development, the real issue I'd have with learning Java is that it doesn't teach you very much about the fundamentals of how a computer works at an architectural level ("ooh, magic garbage collector! abstraction galore!"), but most people don't end up doing kernel programming.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This when I 've been a Linux kernel developer for 10 + years now which is 100 \ % procedural ANSI C. It 's all Java they teach nowadays.To be fair , even so-called " procedural ANSI C " is often coded in an object-oriented style now .
While the language does n't give you a lot of support for it , if you 're using a single data structure ( let 's call it a " class " ) and a bunch of functions ( let 's call them " methods " ) that only operate on that data structure... well , you just did OO programming .
C + + was originally just syntactic sugar that made this kind of thing easy to express , and then sorta exploded from there.If you 're doing kernel development , the real issue I 'd have with learning Java is that it does n't teach you very much about the fundamentals of how a computer works at an architectural level ( " ooh , magic garbage collector !
abstraction galore !
" ) , but most people do n't end up doing kernel programming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This when I've been a Linux kernel developer for 10+ years now which is 100\% procedural ANSI C. It's all Java they teach nowadays.To be fair, even so-called "procedural ANSI C" is often coded in an object-oriented style now.
While the language doesn't give you a lot of support for it, if you're using a single data structure (let's call it a "class") and a bunch of functions (let's call them "methods") that only operate on that data structure... well, you just did OO programming.
C++ was originally just syntactic sugar that made this kind of thing easy to express, and then sorta exploded from there.If you're doing kernel development, the real issue I'd have with learning Java is that it doesn't teach you very much about the fundamentals of how a computer works at an architectural level ("ooh, magic garbage collector!
abstraction galore!
"), but most people don't end up doing kernel programming.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423992</id>
	<title>I'd have to agree</title>
	<author>JumpDrive</author>
	<datestamp>1268213580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've seen to many programmers who get way over there head with Visual Basic and think they are ready to jump into more powerful programs. <br> <br>
I think I see a representation of what he was talking about a lot. Even here I see it in the responses.  "I wanted to draw a circle on the screen.  So I figured out how to do it in BASIC and I did."  and they kept on with this attitude, never considering what the memory issues are and communication issues.  So they right code on 16GB RAM with the RAID 0 15000 RPM SCSI with the latest 3.x CPU's and look like dear in headlights when they have their resulting code bomb on a 1.7 GHz processor with 2GB of ram.   <br> <br>
I simplify, but from where I sit that's what it looks like to me.<br>
Don't get me started on stuff I've seen come out of LabView. (You mean there's a limitation on a Southbridge?).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen to many programmers who get way over there head with Visual Basic and think they are ready to jump into more powerful programs .
I think I see a representation of what he was talking about a lot .
Even here I see it in the responses .
" I wanted to draw a circle on the screen .
So I figured out how to do it in BASIC and I did .
" and they kept on with this attitude , never considering what the memory issues are and communication issues .
So they right code on 16GB RAM with the RAID 0 15000 RPM SCSI with the latest 3.x CPU 's and look like dear in headlights when they have their resulting code bomb on a 1.7 GHz processor with 2GB of ram .
I simplify , but from where I sit that 's what it looks like to me .
Do n't get me started on stuff I 've seen come out of LabView .
( You mean there 's a limitation on a Southbridge ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen to many programmers who get way over there head with Visual Basic and think they are ready to jump into more powerful programs.
I think I see a representation of what he was talking about a lot.
Even here I see it in the responses.
"I wanted to draw a circle on the screen.
So I figured out how to do it in BASIC and I did.
"  and they kept on with this attitude, never considering what the memory issues are and communication issues.
So they right code on 16GB RAM with the RAID 0 15000 RPM SCSI with the latest 3.x CPU's and look like dear in headlights when they have their resulting code bomb on a 1.7 GHz processor with 2GB of ram.
I simplify, but from where I sit that's what it looks like to me.
Don't get me started on stuff I've seen come out of LabView.
(You mean there's a limitation on a Southbridge?
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424178</id>
	<title>Remember the age in which he wrote this</title>
	<author>epo001</author>
	<datestamp>1268216160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When Dijkstra wrote that, kids did not have access to computers. Any child has the flexibility to learn the, ahem, basics from BASIC and move on after discarding it.</p><p>Adults, on the other hand, tend to stick with what they first picked up on. Look at how badly most (non-techy) people use modern GUI-based systems, sticking rigidly to the few things they have picked up over the years.</p><p>This thread has lots of people who learned to program BASIC as a kid and then moved on, they think their experience invalidates Dijkstra, it does not, it reinforces it. Dijkstra was spot on, except as a training language for children BASIC is harmful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Dijkstra wrote that , kids did not have access to computers .
Any child has the flexibility to learn the , ahem , basics from BASIC and move on after discarding it.Adults , on the other hand , tend to stick with what they first picked up on .
Look at how badly most ( non-techy ) people use modern GUI-based systems , sticking rigidly to the few things they have picked up over the years.This thread has lots of people who learned to program BASIC as a kid and then moved on , they think their experience invalidates Dijkstra , it does not , it reinforces it .
Dijkstra was spot on , except as a training language for children BASIC is harmful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Dijkstra wrote that, kids did not have access to computers.
Any child has the flexibility to learn the, ahem, basics from BASIC and move on after discarding it.Adults, on the other hand, tend to stick with what they first picked up on.
Look at how badly most (non-techy) people use modern GUI-based systems, sticking rigidly to the few things they have picked up over the years.This thread has lots of people who learned to program BASIC as a kid and then moved on, they think their experience invalidates Dijkstra, it does not, it reinforces it.
Dijkstra was spot on, except as a training language for children BASIC is harmful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427972</id>
	<title>If you want to breed programmers, use LOGO</title>
	<author>anyGould</author>
	<datestamp>1268244720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously.</p><p>If I had to decide what made me like programming, it was being six years old and getting to drive that dumb turtle around a screen (wasn't lucky enough to have the physical turtle). Later I picked up Basic and Hypercard in high school, Modula-2, Batch, C and C++ in university, Perl, Javascript, Java and VBA in my career and personal projects. But I probably wouldn't be doing what I do now if I didn't discover how to draw shapes on screen.</p><p>Now, Logo isn't a "useful" language. But it shows kids that you can control the Magic Game Box. And your future programmers will see that, go "cool!", and run with it.</p><p>It's the Lego theory - people who end up building things as adults liked to build with blocks and legos as kids. The complexity comes later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously.If I had to decide what made me like programming , it was being six years old and getting to drive that dumb turtle around a screen ( was n't lucky enough to have the physical turtle ) .
Later I picked up Basic and Hypercard in high school , Modula-2 , Batch , C and C + + in university , Perl , Javascript , Java and VBA in my career and personal projects .
But I probably would n't be doing what I do now if I did n't discover how to draw shapes on screen.Now , Logo is n't a " useful " language .
But it shows kids that you can control the Magic Game Box .
And your future programmers will see that , go " cool !
" , and run with it.It 's the Lego theory - people who end up building things as adults liked to build with blocks and legos as kids .
The complexity comes later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.If I had to decide what made me like programming, it was being six years old and getting to drive that dumb turtle around a screen (wasn't lucky enough to have the physical turtle).
Later I picked up Basic and Hypercard in high school, Modula-2, Batch, C and C++ in university, Perl, Javascript, Java and VBA in my career and personal projects.
But I probably wouldn't be doing what I do now if I didn't discover how to draw shapes on screen.Now, Logo isn't a "useful" language.
But it shows kids that you can control the Magic Game Box.
And your future programmers will see that, go "cool!
", and run with it.It's the Lego theory - people who end up building things as adults liked to build with blocks and legos as kids.
The complexity comes later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424934</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268228700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which points to the inherent value of BASIC as a starting language: It's conceptually closer to the way computers work than other high level languages. Line numbers and GOTO are the equivalents of memory addresses and JMP instructions. A good programmer eventually sees why unstructured code causes problems. If you've started with BASIC, you either appreciate and embrace the clarity of better languages or you were hopeless to begin with. Someone who only believes that GOTO is a troublemaker is more likely to think in an unstructured manner than someone who <b>knows</b> why (and therefore that) GOTO is problematic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which points to the inherent value of BASIC as a starting language : It 's conceptually closer to the way computers work than other high level languages .
Line numbers and GOTO are the equivalents of memory addresses and JMP instructions .
A good programmer eventually sees why unstructured code causes problems .
If you 've started with BASIC , you either appreciate and embrace the clarity of better languages or you were hopeless to begin with .
Someone who only believes that GOTO is a troublemaker is more likely to think in an unstructured manner than someone who knows why ( and therefore that ) GOTO is problematic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which points to the inherent value of BASIC as a starting language: It's conceptually closer to the way computers work than other high level languages.
Line numbers and GOTO are the equivalents of memory addresses and JMP instructions.
A good programmer eventually sees why unstructured code causes problems.
If you've started with BASIC, you either appreciate and embrace the clarity of better languages or you were hopeless to begin with.
Someone who only believes that GOTO is a troublemaker is more likely to think in an unstructured manner than someone who knows why (and therefore that) GOTO is problematic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424842</id>
	<title>Re:Bah (Dijkstra was Pompous)</title>
	<author>Required Snark</author>
	<datestamp>1268227380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I personally heard Dijkstra say say something ridiculous. I was working for Burroughs in Mission Viejo on their Algol machines when he was a Burroughs Fellow, and they trotted him out to lecture the troops. I guess that they hoped that we would somehow become smarter if we were exposed to his brilliance. As we were walking to the meeting I was in just behind him, and he turned to his companions and said "I need to take a negative drink",  meaning that he was going to take a leak before he started speaking. Some how that always seemed wrong to me, because I thought it would be better to "put a negative drink."
<p>
As for the badness of Basic, all I can do is think of what Knuth said: it is good to know multiple different styles of programming languages. Only knowing languages descended from Algol: C, C++, Java, PHP, JavaScript, is too limiting. It's good to be proficient with LISP/Scheme, assembly on more then one CPU, a string processing language (Perl/Awk), and an industrial language like Fortran or Ada. Logic/declaritive programming is also a useful skill. One size does not fil all, and if you are comfortable with multiple paradidms you will be a bettere programmer. Personally, my next language experience is going to be with Haskell, because I really like Scheme, and I want to understand the functional paradigm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally heard Dijkstra say say something ridiculous .
I was working for Burroughs in Mission Viejo on their Algol machines when he was a Burroughs Fellow , and they trotted him out to lecture the troops .
I guess that they hoped that we would somehow become smarter if we were exposed to his brilliance .
As we were walking to the meeting I was in just behind him , and he turned to his companions and said " I need to take a negative drink " , meaning that he was going to take a leak before he started speaking .
Some how that always seemed wrong to me , because I thought it would be better to " put a negative drink .
" As for the badness of Basic , all I can do is think of what Knuth said : it is good to know multiple different styles of programming languages .
Only knowing languages descended from Algol : C , C + + , Java , PHP , JavaScript , is too limiting .
It 's good to be proficient with LISP/Scheme , assembly on more then one CPU , a string processing language ( Perl/Awk ) , and an industrial language like Fortran or Ada .
Logic/declaritive programming is also a useful skill .
One size does not fil all , and if you are comfortable with multiple paradidms you will be a bettere programmer .
Personally , my next language experience is going to be with Haskell , because I really like Scheme , and I want to understand the functional paradigm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally heard Dijkstra say say something ridiculous.
I was working for Burroughs in Mission Viejo on their Algol machines when he was a Burroughs Fellow, and they trotted him out to lecture the troops.
I guess that they hoped that we would somehow become smarter if we were exposed to his brilliance.
As we were walking to the meeting I was in just behind him, and he turned to his companions and said "I need to take a negative drink",  meaning that he was going to take a leak before he started speaking.
Some how that always seemed wrong to me, because I thought it would be better to "put a negative drink.
"

As for the badness of Basic, all I can do is think of what Knuth said: it is good to know multiple different styles of programming languages.
Only knowing languages descended from Algol: C, C++, Java, PHP, JavaScript, is too limiting.
It's good to be proficient with LISP/Scheme, assembly on more then one CPU, a string processing language (Perl/Awk), and an industrial language like Fortran or Ada.
Logic/declaritive programming is also a useful skill.
One size does not fil all, and if you are comfortable with multiple paradidms you will be a bettere programmer.
Personally, my next language experience is going to be with Haskell, because I really like Scheme, and I want to understand the functional paradigm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423956</id>
	<title>Better than nothing</title>
	<author>kainosnous</author>
	<datestamp>1268212860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I was first learning to "program" I had nothing more than an old computer with DOS. The internet was something I had heard about, but had never experienced myself, and I didn't know what Linux or even Unix was. The only way I had to learn was from some books I found at the library. At first, it was just<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.bat files. When I discovered BASIC (I thing it was GW BASIC), I was excited to have it. Later, I discovered QB.</p><p>There are some advantages. First, I didn't have to set anything up or worry about what includes I needed. A simple PRINT "Hello word" was enough. What was better with QB was that with the press of F1 I could browse the list of commands. Also, it came with a Gorillas.bas and Nibbles.bas. I spent hours injecting lines of code into those games.</p><p>Sure, if you have a full Linux environment with gcc, man pages, and web access then BASIC is just some lame toy, but if it's all you have It's a start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was first learning to " program " I had nothing more than an old computer with DOS .
The internet was something I had heard about , but had never experienced myself , and I did n't know what Linux or even Unix was .
The only way I had to learn was from some books I found at the library .
At first , it was just .bat files .
When I discovered BASIC ( I thing it was GW BASIC ) , I was excited to have it .
Later , I discovered QB.There are some advantages .
First , I did n't have to set anything up or worry about what includes I needed .
A simple PRINT " Hello word " was enough .
What was better with QB was that with the press of F1 I could browse the list of commands .
Also , it came with a Gorillas.bas and Nibbles.bas .
I spent hours injecting lines of code into those games.Sure , if you have a full Linux environment with gcc , man pages , and web access then BASIC is just some lame toy , but if it 's all you have It 's a start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was first learning to "program" I had nothing more than an old computer with DOS.
The internet was something I had heard about, but had never experienced myself, and I didn't know what Linux or even Unix was.
The only way I had to learn was from some books I found at the library.
At first, it was just .bat files.
When I discovered BASIC (I thing it was GW BASIC), I was excited to have it.
Later, I discovered QB.There are some advantages.
First, I didn't have to set anything up or worry about what includes I needed.
A simple PRINT "Hello word" was enough.
What was better with QB was that with the press of F1 I could browse the list of commands.
Also, it came with a Gorillas.bas and Nibbles.bas.
I spent hours injecting lines of code into those games.Sure, if you have a full Linux environment with gcc, man pages, and web access then BASIC is just some lame toy, but if it's all you have It's a start.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424584</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is irrelevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268222940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We were taught BASIC in my maths class when I was 12. This was on PET computers (CBM4016) with cassette tapes for storage. I thought that was the usual age for teaching kids computers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We were taught BASIC in my maths class when I was 12 .
This was on PET computers ( CBM4016 ) with cassette tapes for storage .
I thought that was the usual age for teaching kids computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We were taught BASIC in my maths class when I was 12.
This was on PET computers (CBM4016) with cassette tapes for storage.
I thought that was the usual age for teaching kids computers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427890</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1268244240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The GOTO command is an old language command and it is not Basic Only almost all older languages have a form of GOTO.  While it is a more true representation on what the computer is doing under the covers.  As well early computers displays were quite limited (80x25/40x25) makes it quite difficult to properly indent wasting 5-7 more spots of white space.  As well most of the editors were line editors with line numbers... With the technology at the time GOTO offered much better code then Procedural programming could at the time.  Now it doesn't make good computer and should be avoided, as with modern displays that can clearly display hundreds of characters per screen. Tabbing and using up white space isn't an issue with programs that allow you to scroll left and right, and page editors where you can move up and down and even add new lines in the middle much easier.  I remember in GWBasic having to renumber some of my programs because I put in more code which I had numbered.<br>Ok<br>list 10 - 20<br>10 PRINT "HELLO"<br>20 PRINT "DONE"</p><p>Then having to go up and renumber and execute each line again.</p><p>A real pain</p><p>No you just go to the line and type what you need without numbering... It is a big advantage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The GOTO command is an old language command and it is not Basic Only almost all older languages have a form of GOTO .
While it is a more true representation on what the computer is doing under the covers .
As well early computers displays were quite limited ( 80x25/40x25 ) makes it quite difficult to properly indent wasting 5-7 more spots of white space .
As well most of the editors were line editors with line numbers... With the technology at the time GOTO offered much better code then Procedural programming could at the time .
Now it does n't make good computer and should be avoided , as with modern displays that can clearly display hundreds of characters per screen .
Tabbing and using up white space is n't an issue with programs that allow you to scroll left and right , and page editors where you can move up and down and even add new lines in the middle much easier .
I remember in GWBasic having to renumber some of my programs because I put in more code which I had numbered.Oklist 10 - 2010 PRINT " HELLO " 20 PRINT " DONE " Then having to go up and renumber and execute each line again.A real painNo you just go to the line and type what you need without numbering... It is a big advantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GOTO command is an old language command and it is not Basic Only almost all older languages have a form of GOTO.
While it is a more true representation on what the computer is doing under the covers.
As well early computers displays were quite limited (80x25/40x25) makes it quite difficult to properly indent wasting 5-7 more spots of white space.
As well most of the editors were line editors with line numbers... With the technology at the time GOTO offered much better code then Procedural programming could at the time.
Now it doesn't make good computer and should be avoided, as with modern displays that can clearly display hundreds of characters per screen.
Tabbing and using up white space isn't an issue with programs that allow you to scroll left and right, and page editors where you can move up and down and even add new lines in the middle much easier.
I remember in GWBasic having to renumber some of my programs because I put in more code which I had numbered.Oklist 10 - 2010 PRINT "HELLO"20 PRINT "DONE"Then having to go up and renumber and execute each line again.A real painNo you just go to the line and type what you need without numbering... It is a big advantage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423716</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1268253480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>http://slashdot.org/journal/239880/Slashdot-moderation-is-awful</p></div><p>Heh......this is what happens when you rush super-fast to comment without reading the article, post something unrelated, and end up getting modded down.  You end up thinking slashdot moderation is awful.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //slashdot.org/journal/239880/Slashdot-moderation-is-awfulHeh......this is what happens when you rush super-fast to comment without reading the article , post something unrelated , and end up getting modded down .
You end up thinking slashdot moderation is awful .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://slashdot.org/journal/239880/Slashdot-moderation-is-awfulHeh......this is what happens when you rush super-fast to comment without reading the article, post something unrelated, and end up getting modded down.
You end up thinking slashdot moderation is awful.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424010</id>
	<title>BASIC was great at the time.</title>
	<author>Sarusa</author>
	<datestamp>1268213940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did Apple and C64 BASIC (and 6502 assembly language) to death back in the day. You really can't get more 'oh no, gotos everywhere!' than those, but I seem to have survived it. Of course I realized the fragility that GOTOs and JMPs engendered. The key thing is that it nurtured my love for programming because it was so easy to slap things together. Now of course, I can see where it had flaws, but what was I going to use Back in the Day? Pascal? Please, I learned it. But Wirth and Dijkstra's beloved Pascal, while great in theory, was in practice crap for making neat stuff with the minimum amount of effort compared to BASIC + 6502 ASM. If you wanted to do the REAL stuff in Pascal instead of just masturbating for your professor you had to learn the pcode interpreted byte code stuff, which was just fancy assembly language (though it was neat as a precursor of modern VMs). I could (and did!) churn out an entire game in AppleSoft BASIC while the UCSD pascal system was chonking away on the floppy drive editing or compiling or whatever, and god help you if you didn't have two floppy drives. Meanwhile BASIC would happily run with just a tape drive or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/nothing at all/. She was an easy whore but things got done. These days I use Python with the added advantage that I think it's the most maintainable language even if it doesn't have the purity of something like Scheme, but none of those were an option at the time.</p><p>So yeah, spaghetti code is bad, but I think any decent programmer learns that sooner or later anyhow. If BASIC got you going, more power to you.</p><p>More to the point, is coddling uninterested putzes with Java's strait jacketed purity so they can churn out more utter crap really a better alternative than BASIC's trial of fire? Because that's our current go-to plan. I apologize in advance to those excellent Java programmers I know who can really make Java sing, but you, even more than me, already hate that most of the people using Java are FactoryFactoryFactoryAbstractFactoryTools. Far better to flush them out earlier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did Apple and C64 BASIC ( and 6502 assembly language ) to death back in the day .
You really ca n't get more 'oh no , gotos everywhere !
' than those , but I seem to have survived it .
Of course I realized the fragility that GOTOs and JMPs engendered .
The key thing is that it nurtured my love for programming because it was so easy to slap things together .
Now of course , I can see where it had flaws , but what was I going to use Back in the Day ?
Pascal ? Please , I learned it .
But Wirth and Dijkstra 's beloved Pascal , while great in theory , was in practice crap for making neat stuff with the minimum amount of effort compared to BASIC + 6502 ASM .
If you wanted to do the REAL stuff in Pascal instead of just masturbating for your professor you had to learn the pcode interpreted byte code stuff , which was just fancy assembly language ( though it was neat as a precursor of modern VMs ) .
I could ( and did !
) churn out an entire game in AppleSoft BASIC while the UCSD pascal system was chonking away on the floppy drive editing or compiling or whatever , and god help you if you did n't have two floppy drives .
Meanwhile BASIC would happily run with just a tape drive or /nothing at all/ .
She was an easy whore but things got done .
These days I use Python with the added advantage that I think it 's the most maintainable language even if it does n't have the purity of something like Scheme , but none of those were an option at the time.So yeah , spaghetti code is bad , but I think any decent programmer learns that sooner or later anyhow .
If BASIC got you going , more power to you.More to the point , is coddling uninterested putzes with Java 's strait jacketed purity so they can churn out more utter crap really a better alternative than BASIC 's trial of fire ?
Because that 's our current go-to plan .
I apologize in advance to those excellent Java programmers I know who can really make Java sing , but you , even more than me , already hate that most of the people using Java are FactoryFactoryFactoryAbstractFactoryTools .
Far better to flush them out earlier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did Apple and C64 BASIC (and 6502 assembly language) to death back in the day.
You really can't get more 'oh no, gotos everywhere!
' than those, but I seem to have survived it.
Of course I realized the fragility that GOTOs and JMPs engendered.
The key thing is that it nurtured my love for programming because it was so easy to slap things together.
Now of course, I can see where it had flaws, but what was I going to use Back in the Day?
Pascal? Please, I learned it.
But Wirth and Dijkstra's beloved Pascal, while great in theory, was in practice crap for making neat stuff with the minimum amount of effort compared to BASIC + 6502 ASM.
If you wanted to do the REAL stuff in Pascal instead of just masturbating for your professor you had to learn the pcode interpreted byte code stuff, which was just fancy assembly language (though it was neat as a precursor of modern VMs).
I could (and did!
) churn out an entire game in AppleSoft BASIC while the UCSD pascal system was chonking away on the floppy drive editing or compiling or whatever, and god help you if you didn't have two floppy drives.
Meanwhile BASIC would happily run with just a tape drive or /nothing at all/.
She was an easy whore but things got done.
These days I use Python with the added advantage that I think it's the most maintainable language even if it doesn't have the purity of something like Scheme, but none of those were an option at the time.So yeah, spaghetti code is bad, but I think any decent programmer learns that sooner or later anyhow.
If BASIC got you going, more power to you.More to the point, is coddling uninterested putzes with Java's strait jacketed purity so they can churn out more utter crap really a better alternative than BASIC's trial of fire?
Because that's our current go-to plan.
I apologize in advance to those excellent Java programmers I know who can really make Java sing, but you, even more than me, already hate that most of the people using Java are FactoryFactoryFactoryAbstractFactoryTools.
Far better to flush them out earlier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424598</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268223240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When goto is not an option give me a break;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When goto is not an option give me a break ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When goto is not an option give me a break;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425596</id>
	<title>Linux file systems are object-oriented</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1268233680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This when I've been a Linux kernel developer for 10+ years now which is 100\% procedural ANSI C.</p></div><p>If you'd said 99\% I might have agreed.</p><p>But no, Linux isn't 100\% procedural.  The file systems are object oriented---each file systems presents a vtable to the vfs layer, which is then used to translate the `read' system call into, say, the reiserfs `read' call, or the ext3 `read' call, or the [...].</p><p>In other words, the vfs layer invokes the read <em>method</em> of the <em>class</em> corresponding to the file system in question.</p><p>(And no reductionistic arguments, unless you want to argue that programs aren't procedural either, because there are no procedures but only a bunch of GOTOs with a stack...)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This when I 've been a Linux kernel developer for 10 + years now which is 100 \ % procedural ANSI C.If you 'd said 99 \ % I might have agreed.But no , Linux is n't 100 \ % procedural .
The file systems are object oriented---each file systems presents a vtable to the vfs layer , which is then used to translate the ` read ' system call into , say , the reiserfs ` read ' call , or the ext3 ` read ' call , or the [ ... ] .In other words , the vfs layer invokes the read method of the class corresponding to the file system in question .
( And no reductionistic arguments , unless you want to argue that programs are n't procedural either , because there are no procedures but only a bunch of GOTOs with a stack... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This when I've been a Linux kernel developer for 10+ years now which is 100\% procedural ANSI C.If you'd said 99\% I might have agreed.But no, Linux isn't 100\% procedural.
The file systems are object oriented---each file systems presents a vtable to the vfs layer, which is then used to translate the `read' system call into, say, the reiserfs `read' call, or the ext3 `read' call, or the [...].In other words, the vfs layer invokes the read method of the class corresponding to the file system in question.
(And no reductionistic arguments, unless you want to argue that programs aren't procedural either, because there are no procedures but only a bunch of GOTOs with a stack...)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423966</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>simoncpu was here</author>
	<datestamp>1268213160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can read a more informative article on Slashdot moderation <a href="http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Slashdot#Moderation\_System" title="encycloped...matica.com">here</a> [encycloped...matica.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can read a more informative article on Slashdot moderation here [ encycloped...matica.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can read a more informative article on Slashdot moderation here [encycloped...matica.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425582</id>
	<title>Yes, even smart guys can be Trolls</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1268233620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only significance of Dijkstra's comment is that it proves that Trolls predate Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only significance of Dijkstra 's comment is that it proves that Trolls predate Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only significance of Dijkstra's comment is that it proves that Trolls predate Slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424704</id>
	<title>Wrong language.</title>
	<author>machine321</author>
	<datestamp>1268224980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration</p></div><p>He's thinking of APL, not BASIC.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regenerationHe 's thinking of APL , not BASIC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regenerationHe's thinking of APL, not BASIC.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426228</id>
	<title>the problem with predictions</title>
	<author>the agent man</author>
	<datestamp>1268236980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>they may not only be dead wrong but also inspire other people in pretty stupid ways. On the first day of my ugrad CS education the professor, most likely influenced by Dijkstra's absurd statement, had students raise their hand if they had previous BASIC programming experience. Then, he went on a rant claiming that we, the BASIC programming kind, would have virtually no chance on graduating from this institution. Couple of years later he had to eat his own words and hand me over the price for best student. Later I was one of the few of that class that got PhD in CS. So there Dijkstra!</htmltext>
<tokenext>they may not only be dead wrong but also inspire other people in pretty stupid ways .
On the first day of my ugrad CS education the professor , most likely influenced by Dijkstra 's absurd statement , had students raise their hand if they had previous BASIC programming experience .
Then , he went on a rant claiming that we , the BASIC programming kind , would have virtually no chance on graduating from this institution .
Couple of years later he had to eat his own words and hand me over the price for best student .
Later I was one of the few of that class that got PhD in CS .
So there Dijkstra !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they may not only be dead wrong but also inspire other people in pretty stupid ways.
On the first day of my ugrad CS education the professor, most likely influenced by Dijkstra's absurd statement, had students raise their hand if they had previous BASIC programming experience.
Then, he went on a rant claiming that we, the BASIC programming kind, would have virtually no chance on graduating from this institution.
Couple of years later he had to eat his own words and hand me over the price for best student.
Later I was one of the few of that class that got PhD in CS.
So there Dijkstra!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423726</id>
	<title>Simple rewards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268253540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I learned BASIC on a Commodore Vic-20 when I was about 6. The big problem with that flavor of BASIC was its shallowness: it didn't reward elegant solutions to programming problems and it was very easy to hit the performance limit. I never really managed to build anything more complex than text adventures and very simple arcade games. Still, the BASIC prompt was the very first thing you saw when switching on the micro so you were naturally attracted to experimenting with it, assisted by handbook that was included in the box. The prompt rewarded curiosity, especially when you started to enter those seemingly random values for PEEKS and POKES. Nowadays, on Windows machines, the prompt is hidden away from sight and there's hardly any mention of a programming or scripting language anywhere in the GUI.br<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/br<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/I can't say that learning BASIC made me a better or worse programmer, but that's what got me interested in computing in the first place: those simple but oh-so-thrilling rewards of getting the machine to do what you want it to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I learned BASIC on a Commodore Vic-20 when I was about 6 .
The big problem with that flavor of BASIC was its shallowness : it did n't reward elegant solutions to programming problems and it was very easy to hit the performance limit .
I never really managed to build anything more complex than text adventures and very simple arcade games .
Still , the BASIC prompt was the very first thing you saw when switching on the micro so you were naturally attracted to experimenting with it , assisted by handbook that was included in the box .
The prompt rewarded curiosity , especially when you started to enter those seemingly random values for PEEKS and POKES .
Nowadays , on Windows machines , the prompt is hidden away from sight and there 's hardly any mention of a programming or scripting language anywhere in the GUI.br /br /I ca n't say that learning BASIC made me a better or worse programmer , but that 's what got me interested in computing in the first place : those simple but oh-so-thrilling rewards of getting the machine to do what you want it to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I learned BASIC on a Commodore Vic-20 when I was about 6.
The big problem with that flavor of BASIC was its shallowness: it didn't reward elegant solutions to programming problems and it was very easy to hit the performance limit.
I never really managed to build anything more complex than text adventures and very simple arcade games.
Still, the BASIC prompt was the very first thing you saw when switching on the micro so you were naturally attracted to experimenting with it, assisted by handbook that was included in the box.
The prompt rewarded curiosity, especially when you started to enter those seemingly random values for PEEKS and POKES.
Nowadays, on Windows machines, the prompt is hidden away from sight and there's hardly any mention of a programming or scripting language anywhere in the GUI.br /br /I can't say that learning BASIC made me a better or worse programmer, but that's what got me interested in computing in the first place: those simple but oh-so-thrilling rewards of getting the machine to do what you want it to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424100</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is irrelevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268215140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here in Ireland (NUI, Galway) C has been used as the first / introduction to programming language for a long time now.
There was a brief &amp; failed effort to use Java; I had the "pleasure" of trying to tutor some of the people who had started on Java -- they were a confused bunch.
Of course there are plenty of people who fail to "get it" with C too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in Ireland ( NUI , Galway ) C has been used as the first / introduction to programming language for a long time now .
There was a brief &amp; failed effort to use Java ; I had the " pleasure " of trying to tutor some of the people who had started on Java -- they were a confused bunch .
Of course there are plenty of people who fail to " get it " with C too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in Ireland (NUI, Galway) C has been used as the first / introduction to programming language for a long time now.
There was a brief &amp; failed effort to use Java; I had the "pleasure" of trying to tutor some of the people who had started on Java -- they were a confused bunch.
Of course there are plenty of people who fail to "get it" with C too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424058</id>
	<title>Ever see BBC Basic?</title>
	<author>serviscope\_minor</author>
	<datestamp>1268214600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BBC Model B was released in 1981. It had a nice dialect of basic with named procedures, named functions, dynamic memory allocation, typed variables, proper pointer indirection and a cleverly integrated assembler.</p><p>It had pretty much the full suite of structured programming tools.</p><p>Maybe the comment had some value before 1981, though I don't think it did. For the last 29 years, however it has been somewhat out of date.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC Model B was released in 1981 .
It had a nice dialect of basic with named procedures , named functions , dynamic memory allocation , typed variables , proper pointer indirection and a cleverly integrated assembler.It had pretty much the full suite of structured programming tools.Maybe the comment had some value before 1981 , though I do n't think it did .
For the last 29 years , however it has been somewhat out of date .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC Model B was released in 1981.
It had a nice dialect of basic with named procedures, named functions, dynamic memory allocation, typed variables, proper pointer indirection and a cleverly integrated assembler.It had pretty much the full suite of structured programming tools.Maybe the comment had some value before 1981, though I don't think it did.
For the last 29 years, however it has been somewhat out of date.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424728</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is irrelevant</title>
	<author>smallfries</author>
	<datestamp>1268225640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It used to be fashionable to introduce children to Logo long before that age.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It used to be fashionable to introduce children to Logo long before that age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It used to be fashionable to introduce children to Logo long before that age.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424714</id>
	<title>Re:It's not the language, it's the teacher</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268225220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know any half-decent C++ programmer who learned it in a classroom with a teacher.  Every good C++ programmer I know started with BASIC, moved to C, then to C++, and was self-taught the whole way through.  The guys who can't learn without being spoon-fed by a teacher are not the guys you want to work with.</p><p>Auto-tuition may indeed induce bad habits, but losing bad habits is a lot easier than gaining talent or intelligence from nowhere.</p><p>In any case, teachers of languages do not know good habits.  Many C++ teachers teach things which are well known to be bad practice, in that dogmatic way that only teachers can.  Undoing that is a lot harder than undoing something someone *personally* thought was a good idea once.  People with their own bad habits don't argue as hard as people who think an authority is speaking through them.  This is another reason I don't want to work with people who were taught C++ in a clasroom.  They are closed-minded and usually about 5 years out of date on best practices (same as their teachers).</p><p>It's all a little academic anyway.  The bad habit that C++ programmers could benefit most from losing is the habit of programming in C++ in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know any half-decent C + + programmer who learned it in a classroom with a teacher .
Every good C + + programmer I know started with BASIC , moved to C , then to C + + , and was self-taught the whole way through .
The guys who ca n't learn without being spoon-fed by a teacher are not the guys you want to work with.Auto-tuition may indeed induce bad habits , but losing bad habits is a lot easier than gaining talent or intelligence from nowhere.In any case , teachers of languages do not know good habits .
Many C + + teachers teach things which are well known to be bad practice , in that dogmatic way that only teachers can .
Undoing that is a lot harder than undoing something someone * personally * thought was a good idea once .
People with their own bad habits do n't argue as hard as people who think an authority is speaking through them .
This is another reason I do n't want to work with people who were taught C + + in a clasroom .
They are closed-minded and usually about 5 years out of date on best practices ( same as their teachers ) .It 's all a little academic anyway .
The bad habit that C + + programmers could benefit most from losing is the habit of programming in C + + in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know any half-decent C++ programmer who learned it in a classroom with a teacher.
Every good C++ programmer I know started with BASIC, moved to C, then to C++, and was self-taught the whole way through.
The guys who can't learn without being spoon-fed by a teacher are not the guys you want to work with.Auto-tuition may indeed induce bad habits, but losing bad habits is a lot easier than gaining talent or intelligence from nowhere.In any case, teachers of languages do not know good habits.
Many C++ teachers teach things which are well known to be bad practice, in that dogmatic way that only teachers can.
Undoing that is a lot harder than undoing something someone *personally* thought was a good idea once.
People with their own bad habits don't argue as hard as people who think an authority is speaking through them.
This is another reason I don't want to work with people who were taught C++ in a clasroom.
They are closed-minded and usually about 5 years out of date on best practices (same as their teachers).It's all a little academic anyway.
The bad habit that C++ programmers could benefit most from losing is the habit of programming in C++ in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424110</id>
	<title>Started with BASIC, sure...</title>
	<author>Alien1024</author>
	<datestamp>1268215320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The world is full of excellent programmers who cut their teeth on BASIC</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Because it was the language that came preloaded in the ROM of so many home computers back in the early 80's.<br>

I cherish memories of the time I started programming in Speccy BASIC, at a single-digit age. I got to love programming on that machine. But I do not think it's any good for a beginner.<br>

The point that the author makes, that "the horribleness of BASIC was its virtue. It forced us to think around corners. It made us think through what the control structures really were, and how they were implemented." is moot - assuming he's not joking, if you really want to train that way of thinking, you're much better off learning Assembler.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The world is full of excellent programmers who cut their teeth on BASIC Because it was the language that came preloaded in the ROM of so many home computers back in the early 80 's .
I cherish memories of the time I started programming in Speccy BASIC , at a single-digit age .
I got to love programming on that machine .
But I do not think it 's any good for a beginner .
The point that the author makes , that " the horribleness of BASIC was its virtue .
It forced us to think around corners .
It made us think through what the control structures really were , and how they were implemented .
" is moot - assuming he 's not joking , if you really want to train that way of thinking , you 're much better off learning Assembler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The world is full of excellent programmers who cut their teeth on BASIC


Because it was the language that came preloaded in the ROM of so many home computers back in the early 80's.
I cherish memories of the time I started programming in Speccy BASIC, at a single-digit age.
I got to love programming on that machine.
But I do not think it's any good for a beginner.
The point that the author makes, that "the horribleness of BASIC was its virtue.
It forced us to think around corners.
It made us think through what the control structures really were, and how they were implemented.
" is moot - assuming he's not joking, if you really want to train that way of thinking, you're much better off learning Assembler.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424364</id>
	<title>Re:Appreciate the difference</title>
	<author>fredrik70</author>
	<datestamp>1268219640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hear hear, all very true. I still remember the pain when I ran out of numbers (when I needed to insert some code inbetween 2 lines) and needed to sit down and renumber the whole piece of code, now trying to add big enough increments between the numbers.<br>c was heaven after such thing</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hear hear , all very true .
I still remember the pain when I ran out of numbers ( when I needed to insert some code inbetween 2 lines ) and needed to sit down and renumber the whole piece of code , now trying to add big enough increments between the numbers.c was heaven after such thing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hear hear, all very true.
I still remember the pain when I ran out of numbers (when I needed to insert some code inbetween 2 lines) and needed to sit down and renumber the whole piece of code, now trying to add big enough increments between the numbers.c was heaven after such thing</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423792</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is irrelevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268254320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>just great, more sushi, I should block images from that site</i></p><p>I started with Apple BASIC, and I was playing around with peek and poke before the other students even knew how to properly misuse goto.</p><p>But that was when I was 13. The first year of college should not teach BASIC.</p><p>But why are we not introducing BASIC or the very beginner friendly 'Ruby' to students when they're 13 anymore?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just great , more sushi , I should block images from that siteI started with Apple BASIC , and I was playing around with peek and poke before the other students even knew how to properly misuse goto.But that was when I was 13 .
The first year of college should not teach BASIC.But why are we not introducing BASIC or the very beginner friendly 'Ruby ' to students when they 're 13 anymore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just great, more sushi, I should block images from that siteI started with Apple BASIC, and I was playing around with peek and poke before the other students even knew how to properly misuse goto.But that was when I was 13.
The first year of college should not teach BASIC.But why are we not introducing BASIC or the very beginner friendly 'Ruby' to students when they're 13 anymore?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424238</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>lw7av</author>
	<datestamp>1268217000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I miss GOTO. I used it (abused it) quite a lot when I was 11.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I miss GOTO .
I used it ( abused it ) quite a lot when I was 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I miss GOTO.
I used it (abused it) quite a lot when I was 11.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423892</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is irrelevant</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1268212260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What a bunch of horseshit. Most modern intro-to-programming classes are taught in C and/or C++.</i></p><p>Really?  I've looked at a *lot* of courses, and I've hardly ever seen either C or C++ taught as first language.  When I started doing this, Pascal was the most common with a smattering of Modula-2, ML and LISP.  These days, it's almost always Java.  If it isn't, it's OCAML, Modula-3 or LISP.</p><p>What intro-level courses use C or C++?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a bunch of horseshit .
Most modern intro-to-programming classes are taught in C and/or C + + .Really ?
I 've looked at a * lot * of courses , and I 've hardly ever seen either C or C + + taught as first language .
When I started doing this , Pascal was the most common with a smattering of Modula-2 , ML and LISP .
These days , it 's almost always Java .
If it is n't , it 's OCAML , Modula-3 or LISP.What intro-level courses use C or C + + ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a bunch of horseshit.
Most modern intro-to-programming classes are taught in C and/or C++.Really?
I've looked at a *lot* of courses, and I've hardly ever seen either C or C++ taught as first language.
When I started doing this, Pascal was the most common with a smattering of Modula-2, ML and LISP.
These days, it's almost always Java.
If it isn't, it's OCAML, Modula-3 or LISP.What intro-level courses use C or C++?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425362</id>
	<title>Re:Appreciate the difference</title>
	<author>Frigo</author>
	<datestamp>1268232540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>anyone who touched<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET or Java is lost for C++...</p></div><p>That's strange. I heard from several sources that programming in Java for a while makes one's C++ code cleaner.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>anyone who touched .NET or Java is lost for C + + ...That 's strange .
I heard from several sources that programming in Java for a while makes one 's C + + code cleaner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anyone who touched .NET or Java is lost for C++...That's strange.
I heard from several sources that programming in Java for a while makes one's C++ code cleaner.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424374</id>
	<title>Without a doubt BBC BASIC helped me</title>
	<author>jabjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1268219880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>BBC BASIC was my first language. On the Acorn, many things where BBC BASIC, with ARM assembler sprinkled in at bottle necks. Me and a few friends taught ourselves (we shared things we found, and played each other's games). I remember not knowing about procedures/functions. For a few years I wrote everything with GOTOs. Finding out about procs was a revelation I still remember. I look back at the code from my childhood with a certain pride, despite the horror of it. All the variables had shortened names because it made things run faster. Everything was fixed point and logical shifts instead of devides. It is tangled and nasty, but it runs, and being the games is done in BBC BASIC, fast. (SWI for sprite rendering helped!) I do wish someone had got me started on C earlier, didn't set up RiscOS to compile C until I was 19, but there was no one until I was able to do it myself. Setting up gcc on RiscOS had a bit of reputation for being hard, older friends had failed. But once I was up and running, I wrote a C software 3D engine demo thingy, dropped out of uni (stupid multimedia course), moved myself to Windows, C++ and OpenGL, got a job speeding up a startup's 3D engine (which was like a lesson on how not to do 3D), and never looked back. I owe my working life to having BBC BASIC as a child. As a kid in the 80s/90s, you couldn't ask for a better start than BBC BASIC on the Acorn, you could knock together fast enough games to be worth doing. The modern day equivalent I guess would be python and pyGame.</htmltext>
<tokenext>BBC BASIC was my first language .
On the Acorn , many things where BBC BASIC , with ARM assembler sprinkled in at bottle necks .
Me and a few friends taught ourselves ( we shared things we found , and played each other 's games ) .
I remember not knowing about procedures/functions .
For a few years I wrote everything with GOTOs .
Finding out about procs was a revelation I still remember .
I look back at the code from my childhood with a certain pride , despite the horror of it .
All the variables had shortened names because it made things run faster .
Everything was fixed point and logical shifts instead of devides .
It is tangled and nasty , but it runs , and being the games is done in BBC BASIC , fast .
( SWI for sprite rendering helped !
) I do wish someone had got me started on C earlier , did n't set up RiscOS to compile C until I was 19 , but there was no one until I was able to do it myself .
Setting up gcc on RiscOS had a bit of reputation for being hard , older friends had failed .
But once I was up and running , I wrote a C software 3D engine demo thingy , dropped out of uni ( stupid multimedia course ) , moved myself to Windows , C + + and OpenGL , got a job speeding up a startup 's 3D engine ( which was like a lesson on how not to do 3D ) , and never looked back .
I owe my working life to having BBC BASIC as a child .
As a kid in the 80s/90s , you could n't ask for a better start than BBC BASIC on the Acorn , you could knock together fast enough games to be worth doing .
The modern day equivalent I guess would be python and pyGame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BBC BASIC was my first language.
On the Acorn, many things where BBC BASIC, with ARM assembler sprinkled in at bottle necks.
Me and a few friends taught ourselves (we shared things we found, and played each other's games).
I remember not knowing about procedures/functions.
For a few years I wrote everything with GOTOs.
Finding out about procs was a revelation I still remember.
I look back at the code from my childhood with a certain pride, despite the horror of it.
All the variables had shortened names because it made things run faster.
Everything was fixed point and logical shifts instead of devides.
It is tangled and nasty, but it runs, and being the games is done in BBC BASIC, fast.
(SWI for sprite rendering helped!
) I do wish someone had got me started on C earlier, didn't set up RiscOS to compile C until I was 19, but there was no one until I was able to do it myself.
Setting up gcc on RiscOS had a bit of reputation for being hard, older friends had failed.
But once I was up and running, I wrote a C software 3D engine demo thingy, dropped out of uni (stupid multimedia course), moved myself to Windows, C++ and OpenGL, got a job speeding up a startup's 3D engine (which was like a lesson on how not to do 3D), and never looked back.
I owe my working life to having BBC BASIC as a child.
As a kid in the 80s/90s, you couldn't ask for a better start than BBC BASIC on the Acorn, you could knock together fast enough games to be worth doing.
The modern day equivalent I guess would be python and pyGame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423900</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1268212260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd argue that goto IS harmful - however like all harmful things, there are use-cases where it is either necessary or useful to accomplish a particular objective.
<p>
Much like a chain saw not being an all purpose cutting tool....
</p><p>
So... avoid using it when not strictly necessary, but if it is the only sane/high performance way of getting things done in a special use case, by all means...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd argue that goto IS harmful - however like all harmful things , there are use-cases where it is either necessary or useful to accomplish a particular objective .
Much like a chain saw not being an all purpose cutting tool... . So... avoid using it when not strictly necessary , but if it is the only sane/high performance way of getting things done in a special use case , by all means.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd argue that goto IS harmful - however like all harmful things, there are use-cases where it is either necessary or useful to accomplish a particular objective.
Much like a chain saw not being an all purpose cutting tool....

So... avoid using it when not strictly necessary, but if it is the only sane/high performance way of getting things done in a special use case, by all means...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425386</id>
	<title>Duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268232660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll make a simple observation here.</p><p>At the end of TFA, there's a bit about how BASIC allegedly helped the author "the ability to think about a hundred things at once" which in turn helped quote strings appropriately for a DB -&gt; Perl -&gt; JavaScript -&gt; HTML situation. It apparently only took three times to get it right.</p><p>And then comes the assertion that no "amount of structured programming helps with that kind of frankly messy problem". WHAT? No, entirely wrong. A simple but good solution would be to use literal string quotation (instead of having strings interpreted at every step), or a String transformation at the end. You know, so that you DON'T rely on having all of DB -&gt; Perl -&gt; JavaScript -&gt; HTML and your string in exactly the state they are right now, and actually can make changes to any of these without making changes to everything else as well.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Really, if the author of TFA deems his skills with BASIC as valuable it is mainly because he's good at entirely going against common modern programming guidelines and likes to create situations (as BASIC near automatically did) where one constantly struggles to make the least amount of changes to code to not be forced to do more changes in code, and needed to think of hundreds of things to not hit a wall, but still fails at least a few times due to the complexity of it all.</p><p>The rest of the article is more than equally silly, mostly the repeated assertion that various abilities were bestowed onto people who learned BASIC due to the adversity of programming in it. Basically, it boils down to "your brain probably grew from the challenges and you got skills now". I can't agree, I only learned BASIC specific, entirely useless skills from BASIC.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll make a simple observation here.At the end of TFA , there 's a bit about how BASIC allegedly helped the author " the ability to think about a hundred things at once " which in turn helped quote strings appropriately for a DB - &gt; Perl - &gt; JavaScript - &gt; HTML situation .
It apparently only took three times to get it right.And then comes the assertion that no " amount of structured programming helps with that kind of frankly messy problem " .
WHAT ? No , entirely wrong .
A simple but good solution would be to use literal string quotation ( instead of having strings interpreted at every step ) , or a String transformation at the end .
You know , so that you DO N'T rely on having all of DB - &gt; Perl - &gt; JavaScript - &gt; HTML and your string in exactly the state they are right now , and actually can make changes to any of these without making changes to everything else as well .
  Really , if the author of TFA deems his skills with BASIC as valuable it is mainly because he 's good at entirely going against common modern programming guidelines and likes to create situations ( as BASIC near automatically did ) where one constantly struggles to make the least amount of changes to code to not be forced to do more changes in code , and needed to think of hundreds of things to not hit a wall , but still fails at least a few times due to the complexity of it all.The rest of the article is more than equally silly , mostly the repeated assertion that various abilities were bestowed onto people who learned BASIC due to the adversity of programming in it .
Basically , it boils down to " your brain probably grew from the challenges and you got skills now " .
I ca n't agree , I only learned BASIC specific , entirely useless skills from BASIC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll make a simple observation here.At the end of TFA, there's a bit about how BASIC allegedly helped the author "the ability to think about a hundred things at once" which in turn helped quote strings appropriately for a DB -&gt; Perl -&gt; JavaScript -&gt; HTML situation.
It apparently only took three times to get it right.And then comes the assertion that no "amount of structured programming helps with that kind of frankly messy problem".
WHAT? No, entirely wrong.
A simple but good solution would be to use literal string quotation (instead of having strings interpreted at every step), or a String transformation at the end.
You know, so that you DON'T rely on having all of DB -&gt; Perl -&gt; JavaScript -&gt; HTML and your string in exactly the state they are right now, and actually can make changes to any of these without making changes to everything else as well.
  Really, if the author of TFA deems his skills with BASIC as valuable it is mainly because he's good at entirely going against common modern programming guidelines and likes to create situations (as BASIC near automatically did) where one constantly struggles to make the least amount of changes to code to not be forced to do more changes in code, and needed to think of hundreds of things to not hit a wall, but still fails at least a few times due to the complexity of it all.The rest of the article is more than equally silly, mostly the repeated assertion that various abilities were bestowed onto people who learned BASIC due to the adversity of programming in it.
Basically, it boils down to "your brain probably grew from the challenges and you got skills now".
I can't agree, I only learned BASIC specific, entirely useless skills from BASIC.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424972</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is great for kids</title>
	<author>Mongoose Disciple</author>
	<datestamp>1268229180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eh.  I was writing simple games in BASIC at age 6.  I'm pretty sure C memory management would have kicked my ass sideways at the time.  I submit to you that this doesn't necessarily make me a bad programmer in a larger sense.</p><p>I mean, in a sense teaching yourself to program as a kid requires comprehending very basic algebra, so who's to say what one could or couldn't pick up, but it seems like it'd be harder to get C pointer math right without even knowing what multiplication was.</p><p>Sometimes something very simple and limited really is the right tool for the job or the audience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh .
I was writing simple games in BASIC at age 6 .
I 'm pretty sure C memory management would have kicked my ass sideways at the time .
I submit to you that this does n't necessarily make me a bad programmer in a larger sense.I mean , in a sense teaching yourself to program as a kid requires comprehending very basic algebra , so who 's to say what one could or could n't pick up , but it seems like it 'd be harder to get C pointer math right without even knowing what multiplication was.Sometimes something very simple and limited really is the right tool for the job or the audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh.
I was writing simple games in BASIC at age 6.
I'm pretty sure C memory management would have kicked my ass sideways at the time.
I submit to you that this doesn't necessarily make me a bad programmer in a larger sense.I mean, in a sense teaching yourself to program as a kid requires comprehending very basic algebra, so who's to say what one could or couldn't pick up, but it seems like it'd be harder to get C pointer math right without even knowing what multiplication was.Sometimes something very simple and limited really is the right tool for the job or the audience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424734</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>smallfries</author>
	<datestamp>1268225820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I learned in Fortran (I should qualify this by pointing out that I'm not a particularly good programmer)</p></div></blockquote><p>Perhaps, but at least you don't eat quiche.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I learned in Fortran ( I should qualify this by pointing out that I 'm not a particularly good programmer ) Perhaps , but at least you do n't eat quiche .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I learned in Fortran (I should qualify this by pointing out that I'm not a particularly good programmer)Perhaps, but at least you don't eat quiche.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423938</id>
	<title>Re:I started with BASIC</title>
	<author>vikingpower</author>
	<datestamp>1268212680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kewl sig !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kewl sig !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kewl sig !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425060</id>
	<title>Re:It wasn't all that great...</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1268230560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should give Javascript a second chance. It seems like a toy on the surface, but once you uncover a second depth, it becomes very interesting. For starters, you can put on the left side of assignment operator things you would never expect any language could allow you to put there.</p><p>Advanced Javascript programs are composed in 90\% of very tricky Javascript rewriting Javascript into some completely different language (and looking progressively less like Javascript), and then 10\% of extremely straightforward business logic in the new language that matches the problem perfectly and looks almost but not quite entirely unlike Javascript.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should give Javascript a second chance .
It seems like a toy on the surface , but once you uncover a second depth , it becomes very interesting .
For starters , you can put on the left side of assignment operator things you would never expect any language could allow you to put there.Advanced Javascript programs are composed in 90 \ % of very tricky Javascript rewriting Javascript into some completely different language ( and looking progressively less like Javascript ) , and then 10 \ % of extremely straightforward business logic in the new language that matches the problem perfectly and looks almost but not quite entirely unlike Javascript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should give Javascript a second chance.
It seems like a toy on the surface, but once you uncover a second depth, it becomes very interesting.
For starters, you can put on the left side of assignment operator things you would never expect any language could allow you to put there.Advanced Javascript programs are composed in 90\% of very tricky Javascript rewriting Javascript into some completely different language (and looking progressively less like Javascript), and then 10\% of extremely straightforward business logic in the new language that matches the problem perfectly and looks almost but not quite entirely unlike Javascript.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31446186</id>
	<title>Re:Funny argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268309340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spaghetti code gets worse when you factor in overlays.  My first professional job was using BASIC.  Writing some new but mostly maintaining years old, many times patched code.  Took forever to figure out where to make changes.  Thank god it had a debugger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spaghetti code gets worse when you factor in overlays .
My first professional job was using BASIC .
Writing some new but mostly maintaining years old , many times patched code .
Took forever to figure out where to make changes .
Thank god it had a debugger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spaghetti code gets worse when you factor in overlays.
My first professional job was using BASIC.
Writing some new but mostly maintaining years old, many times patched code.
Took forever to figure out where to make changes.
Thank god it had a debugger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426574</id>
	<title>Re:Basic is, well, basic.</title>
	<author>Teancum</author>
	<datestamp>1268238420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would recommend that your son try to pick up <a href="http://scratch.mit.edu/" title="mit.edu">Scratch</a> [mit.edu] as an introductory programming language.  It offers a GUI development environment and adding multi-media features such as animation and sound tracks is like breathing air in that language.  He is probably interested in making his own "shot 'em up" type of game anyway, and that is a perfect language to get started with those kind of concepts.... and it teaches object oriented design right from the start as well.</p><p>There are also thousands of example programs to download from the main website, most of which are written by middle school/junior high kids as well.  There is also a surprisingly large group of professional software developers like myself who are closet Scratch developers and have "pushed" the language to some interesting extremes.  The language is also sandboxed in a way that keeps most of the major problem issues with software development away.</p><p>The only thing that I find lacking with the language is that it was purposely built to avoid any kind of access to external data storage devices like a hard drive (other than to load and save the programs themselves).  I personally think this was a mistake, but it is a part of the philosophy of the language and something that allows it to be used in most public schools where it is being used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would recommend that your son try to pick up Scratch [ mit.edu ] as an introductory programming language .
It offers a GUI development environment and adding multi-media features such as animation and sound tracks is like breathing air in that language .
He is probably interested in making his own " shot 'em up " type of game anyway , and that is a perfect language to get started with those kind of concepts.... and it teaches object oriented design right from the start as well.There are also thousands of example programs to download from the main website , most of which are written by middle school/junior high kids as well .
There is also a surprisingly large group of professional software developers like myself who are closet Scratch developers and have " pushed " the language to some interesting extremes .
The language is also sandboxed in a way that keeps most of the major problem issues with software development away.The only thing that I find lacking with the language is that it was purposely built to avoid any kind of access to external data storage devices like a hard drive ( other than to load and save the programs themselves ) .
I personally think this was a mistake , but it is a part of the philosophy of the language and something that allows it to be used in most public schools where it is being used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would recommend that your son try to pick up Scratch [mit.edu] as an introductory programming language.
It offers a GUI development environment and adding multi-media features such as animation and sound tracks is like breathing air in that language.
He is probably interested in making his own "shot 'em up" type of game anyway, and that is a perfect language to get started with those kind of concepts.... and it teaches object oriented design right from the start as well.There are also thousands of example programs to download from the main website, most of which are written by middle school/junior high kids as well.
There is also a surprisingly large group of professional software developers like myself who are closet Scratch developers and have "pushed" the language to some interesting extremes.
The language is also sandboxed in a way that keeps most of the major problem issues with software development away.The only thing that I find lacking with the language is that it was purposely built to avoid any kind of access to external data storage devices like a hard drive (other than to load and save the programs themselves).
I personally think this was a mistake, but it is a part of the philosophy of the language and something that allows it to be used in most public schools where it is being used.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423672</id>
	<title>Second story from this blog this week...</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1268253180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and I'm wondering: what's with the random sushi pictures?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and I 'm wondering : what 's with the random sushi pictures ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and I'm wondering: what's with the random sushi pictures?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427634</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268243160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The irony is that under the covers, it's all done with jump instructions anyway.</i></p><p>How do you think "if", "else", "switch", "for", and "while" are implemented? Jump instructions are used in each of these constructs. Exception handling is an additional construct that allows code to be written so that the flow of control within a function is inherent in the structure of the code rather than through explicit jumping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The irony is that under the covers , it 's all done with jump instructions anyway.How do you think " if " , " else " , " switch " , " for " , and " while " are implemented ?
Jump instructions are used in each of these constructs .
Exception handling is an additional construct that allows code to be written so that the flow of control within a function is inherent in the structure of the code rather than through explicit jumping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The irony is that under the covers, it's all done with jump instructions anyway.How do you think "if", "else", "switch", "for", and "while" are implemented?
Jump instructions are used in each of these constructs.
Exception handling is an additional construct that allows code to be written so that the flow of control within a function is inherent in the structure of the code rather than through explicit jumping.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427630</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is great for kids</title>
	<author>griffeymac</author>
	<datestamp>1268243160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fewer ridiculous syntax requirements? Stupid unnecessary crap like explicit line numbers?<br> <br>Isn't Python that language where the whitespace/indentation affects the workings of the program code?<br> <br>For a kid starting out to program, I don't at all think that BASIC is a bad idea. If nothing else it might light the fire inside a future hacker and encourage him or her to absorb as much as they can from 'puters. Why start with something that is any more complicated than it needs to be?<br> <br>10 REM ** COOL PROGRAM **<br>20 PRINT "I AM BORIS! I AM INVINCIBLE!"<br>30 GOTO 20</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fewer ridiculous syntax requirements ?
Stupid unnecessary crap like explicit line numbers ?
Is n't Python that language where the whitespace/indentation affects the workings of the program code ?
For a kid starting out to program , I do n't at all think that BASIC is a bad idea .
If nothing else it might light the fire inside a future hacker and encourage him or her to absorb as much as they can from 'puters .
Why start with something that is any more complicated than it needs to be ?
10 REM * * COOL PROGRAM * * 20 PRINT " I AM BORIS !
I AM INVINCIBLE !
" 30 GOTO 20</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fewer ridiculous syntax requirements?
Stupid unnecessary crap like explicit line numbers?
Isn't Python that language where the whitespace/indentation affects the workings of the program code?
For a kid starting out to program, I don't at all think that BASIC is a bad idea.
If nothing else it might light the fire inside a future hacker and encourage him or her to absorb as much as they can from 'puters.
Why start with something that is any more complicated than it needs to be?
10 REM ** COOL PROGRAM **20 PRINT "I AM BORIS!
I AM INVINCIBLE!
"30 GOTO 20</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423778</id>
	<title>Basic and Basic...</title>
	<author>chrysalis</author>
	<datestamp>1268254140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whoever hasn't coded with GfA-Basic or Omikron Basic never experienced how a fun and versatile language it was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoever has n't coded with GfA-Basic or Omikron Basic never experienced how a fun and versatile language it was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoever hasn't coded with GfA-Basic or Omikron Basic never experienced how a fun and versatile language it was.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427146</id>
	<title>BASIC *can* be learned in a structured way, but...</title>
	<author>Qaelith\_2112</author>
	<datestamp>1268240880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the 80s my high school BASIC programming teacher (TRS-80 Model IIIs) made us go through the trouble of structuring our programs very much as if we were coding in Pascal or some other more structured language.  At the time I didn't fully appreciate the added burden and limitations that were being imposed on us.  Understand, though, that I was a self-taught Commodore 64 BASIC spaghetti coder complete with a generous spattering of GOTOs and not nearly enough GOSUBs.  Certainly these programs would have been a nightmare to diagram.  That (at the time) unwelcome discipline imposed in that high school class was of immeasurable value later on as this was an excellent prep for other languages later on and for building far better code than if I were to have continued through life trying to code as if I were still on that C-64.  Still, I can't help thinking that maybe Pascal would have been a more natural way of introducing that discipline and it leaves me wondering how many in other similar high school BASIC courses at the time weren't so lucky as to have structured approaches taught in connection with a totally not-structured language.

But there's the flip side:  Without that amazingly accessible C-64 BASIC that can literally be learned in no time with a quick read-through of the user manual and a handful of other peoples' code to pick through, I doubt I'd have ever bothered to learn in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the 80s my high school BASIC programming teacher ( TRS-80 Model IIIs ) made us go through the trouble of structuring our programs very much as if we were coding in Pascal or some other more structured language .
At the time I did n't fully appreciate the added burden and limitations that were being imposed on us .
Understand , though , that I was a self-taught Commodore 64 BASIC spaghetti coder complete with a generous spattering of GOTOs and not nearly enough GOSUBs .
Certainly these programs would have been a nightmare to diagram .
That ( at the time ) unwelcome discipline imposed in that high school class was of immeasurable value later on as this was an excellent prep for other languages later on and for building far better code than if I were to have continued through life trying to code as if I were still on that C-64 .
Still , I ca n't help thinking that maybe Pascal would have been a more natural way of introducing that discipline and it leaves me wondering how many in other similar high school BASIC courses at the time were n't so lucky as to have structured approaches taught in connection with a totally not-structured language .
But there 's the flip side : Without that amazingly accessible C-64 BASIC that can literally be learned in no time with a quick read-through of the user manual and a handful of other peoples ' code to pick through , I doubt I 'd have ever bothered to learn in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the 80s my high school BASIC programming teacher (TRS-80 Model IIIs) made us go through the trouble of structuring our programs very much as if we were coding in Pascal or some other more structured language.
At the time I didn't fully appreciate the added burden and limitations that were being imposed on us.
Understand, though, that I was a self-taught Commodore 64 BASIC spaghetti coder complete with a generous spattering of GOTOs and not nearly enough GOSUBs.
Certainly these programs would have been a nightmare to diagram.
That (at the time) unwelcome discipline imposed in that high school class was of immeasurable value later on as this was an excellent prep for other languages later on and for building far better code than if I were to have continued through life trying to code as if I were still on that C-64.
Still, I can't help thinking that maybe Pascal would have been a more natural way of introducing that discipline and it leaves me wondering how many in other similar high school BASIC courses at the time weren't so lucky as to have structured approaches taught in connection with a totally not-structured language.
But there's the flip side:  Without that amazingly accessible C-64 BASIC that can literally be learned in no time with a quick read-through of the user manual and a handful of other peoples' code to pick through, I doubt I'd have ever bothered to learn in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428288</id>
	<title>Exceptions</title>
	<author>bussdriver</author>
	<datestamp>1268246340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly what I was thinking. Nobody seems to touch assembly anymore.</p><p>What about exceptions? I've always thought of them as a logical progression of the goto. Possibly as a result of goto being so useful in situations where you need to break out of multiple code blocks such as error conditions. Exceptions fulfill this use case while adding something goto always lacked-- indirection:  I remember goto situations where I would redirect the goto or with some logic decide to goto another "higher" place to properly handle an error. Had goto been acceptable, I think that a "smarter" goto would have been associated with exceptions...  "Advanced" goto involved labels instead of line numbers or memory locations- it was just the next logical step to make labels exist at run time so one could decide to catch or redirect them by their label.... I never encountered this because I learned goto was "bad" while learning C and pascal and the dogma at the time but when I ran into exceptions, I immediately thought "goto is back".</p><p>Think of java-- its all objects. So, we have these silly things called Singletons which only exist because we can't admit it was a mistake to kill global variables so we create a "new" concept that re-invents the wheel we couldn't live without. Even then, a Singleton is not built-in its a hack work around in for the rigid object only dogma (and where classes have runtime properties that is just paying lip service - those are still globals; one could do the same thing with a global struct but that would be taboo...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly what I was thinking .
Nobody seems to touch assembly anymore.What about exceptions ?
I 've always thought of them as a logical progression of the goto .
Possibly as a result of goto being so useful in situations where you need to break out of multiple code blocks such as error conditions .
Exceptions fulfill this use case while adding something goto always lacked-- indirection : I remember goto situations where I would redirect the goto or with some logic decide to goto another " higher " place to properly handle an error .
Had goto been acceptable , I think that a " smarter " goto would have been associated with exceptions... " Advanced " goto involved labels instead of line numbers or memory locations- it was just the next logical step to make labels exist at run time so one could decide to catch or redirect them by their label.... I never encountered this because I learned goto was " bad " while learning C and pascal and the dogma at the time but when I ran into exceptions , I immediately thought " goto is back " .Think of java-- its all objects .
So , we have these silly things called Singletons which only exist because we ca n't admit it was a mistake to kill global variables so we create a " new " concept that re-invents the wheel we could n't live without .
Even then , a Singleton is not built-in its a hack work around in for the rigid object only dogma ( and where classes have runtime properties that is just paying lip service - those are still globals ; one could do the same thing with a global struct but that would be taboo... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly what I was thinking.
Nobody seems to touch assembly anymore.What about exceptions?
I've always thought of them as a logical progression of the goto.
Possibly as a result of goto being so useful in situations where you need to break out of multiple code blocks such as error conditions.
Exceptions fulfill this use case while adding something goto always lacked-- indirection:  I remember goto situations where I would redirect the goto or with some logic decide to goto another "higher" place to properly handle an error.
Had goto been acceptable, I think that a "smarter" goto would have been associated with exceptions...  "Advanced" goto involved labels instead of line numbers or memory locations- it was just the next logical step to make labels exist at run time so one could decide to catch or redirect them by their label.... I never encountered this because I learned goto was "bad" while learning C and pascal and the dogma at the time but when I ran into exceptions, I immediately thought "goto is back".Think of java-- its all objects.
So, we have these silly things called Singletons which only exist because we can't admit it was a mistake to kill global variables so we create a "new" concept that re-invents the wheel we couldn't live without.
Even then, a Singleton is not built-in its a hack work around in for the rigid object only dogma (and where classes have runtime properties that is just paying lip service - those are still globals; one could do the same thing with a global struct but that would be taboo...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425642</id>
	<title>I started out with Atari Basic</title>
	<author>heffel</author>
	<datestamp>1268233920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I went to college, I was originally a Civil Engineering major. All engineering majors were required to take an "Intro to Programming" course taught in FORTRAN.</p><p>My previous BASIC exposure helped me code in circles around my classmates. It was pretty obvious then that having previous BASIC experience was a great asset.</p><p>I enjoyed my FORTRAN class so much that I decided to switch majors to computer science, where I had to take another "Intro to Programming" class, this time in Pascal. Again, previous BASIC exposure had me way ahead of my classmates.</p><p>I have always been puzzled by Dijkstra's dislike of BASIC, you could certainly notice a big difference between students who, like me, had been previously exposed to programming and those who hadn't. And back in those days, most personal computers came with a BASIC interpreter, therefore "previous exposure to programming" pretty much meant "exposure to BASIC".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I went to college , I was originally a Civil Engineering major .
All engineering majors were required to take an " Intro to Programming " course taught in FORTRAN.My previous BASIC exposure helped me code in circles around my classmates .
It was pretty obvious then that having previous BASIC experience was a great asset.I enjoyed my FORTRAN class so much that I decided to switch majors to computer science , where I had to take another " Intro to Programming " class , this time in Pascal .
Again , previous BASIC exposure had me way ahead of my classmates.I have always been puzzled by Dijkstra 's dislike of BASIC , you could certainly notice a big difference between students who , like me , had been previously exposed to programming and those who had n't .
And back in those days , most personal computers came with a BASIC interpreter , therefore " previous exposure to programming " pretty much meant " exposure to BASIC " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I went to college, I was originally a Civil Engineering major.
All engineering majors were required to take an "Intro to Programming" course taught in FORTRAN.My previous BASIC exposure helped me code in circles around my classmates.
It was pretty obvious then that having previous BASIC experience was a great asset.I enjoyed my FORTRAN class so much that I decided to switch majors to computer science, where I had to take another "Intro to Programming" class, this time in Pascal.
Again, previous BASIC exposure had me way ahead of my classmates.I have always been puzzled by Dijkstra's dislike of BASIC, you could certainly notice a big difference between students who, like me, had been previously exposed to programming and those who hadn't.
And back in those days, most personal computers came with a BASIC interpreter, therefore "previous exposure to programming" pretty much meant "exposure to BASIC".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423764</id>
	<title>Appreciate the difference</title>
	<author>Katatsumuri</author>
	<datestamp>1268253900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a programmer who started with old-school BASIC (numbered lines, etc), I was overjoyed with better elements of structured programming in Turbo Basic, and totally excited with C when I learned it. It felt like having my hands untied. So I would state the contrary: you cannot fully appreciate the structured programming unless you went through the GOTO hell.</p><p>I hear a lot of similar FUD from some people, like "you can't grok OOP if you started with C", or "anyone who touched<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET or Java is lost for C++..." It boils down to "people are idiots, they can't possibly learn anything new, they are either indoctrinated at birth in My True Way, or lost and hopeless." Who in their right mind would take that seriously?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a programmer who started with old-school BASIC ( numbered lines , etc ) , I was overjoyed with better elements of structured programming in Turbo Basic , and totally excited with C when I learned it .
It felt like having my hands untied .
So I would state the contrary : you can not fully appreciate the structured programming unless you went through the GOTO hell.I hear a lot of similar FUD from some people , like " you ca n't grok OOP if you started with C " , or " anyone who touched .NET or Java is lost for C + + ... " It boils down to " people are idiots , they ca n't possibly learn anything new , they are either indoctrinated at birth in My True Way , or lost and hopeless .
" Who in their right mind would take that seriously ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a programmer who started with old-school BASIC (numbered lines, etc), I was overjoyed with better elements of structured programming in Turbo Basic, and totally excited with C when I learned it.
It felt like having my hands untied.
So I would state the contrary: you cannot fully appreciate the structured programming unless you went through the GOTO hell.I hear a lot of similar FUD from some people, like "you can't grok OOP if you started with C", or "anyone who touched .NET or Java is lost for C++..." It boils down to "people are idiots, they can't possibly learn anything new, they are either indoctrinated at birth in My True Way, or lost and hopeless.
" Who in their right mind would take that seriously?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424312</id>
	<title>I learned with basic as a young man.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268218380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simons\%27\_BASIC  Simons basic had actual procedures and loops  It also had very powerful access to graphics, sound, and input devices.</p><p>One of my earlier programs was one that mapped out the frequency response of a bass speaker and enclosure, complete with graph.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simons \ % 27 \ _BASIC Simons basic had actual procedures and loops It also had very powerful access to graphics , sound , and input devices.One of my earlier programs was one that mapped out the frequency response of a bass speaker and enclosure , complete with graph .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simons\%27\_BASIC  Simons basic had actual procedures and loops  It also had very powerful access to graphics, sound, and input devices.One of my earlier programs was one that mapped out the frequency response of a bass speaker and enclosure, complete with graph.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425918</id>
	<title>Re:Variety</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268235660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't possibly agree with this more than I do.  Day to day, I code in Ruby now and -- despite some 'flaws' in the language -- I love it. It's fast to code in, flows well and I can get the ideas in my head expressed decently.  That being said, I have coded in quite a few languages for fun and to see how they work and how well I work with them.  I love esotoric languages and in their oddness, they have taught me new ways of thinking sometimes, often as a surprise to me. (My favorite by the way: <a href="http://esolangs.org/wiki/Rail" title="esolangs.org" rel="nofollow">Rail</a> [esolangs.org] -- just a fun language to play with.)  I've done C, C++, Java, but they never give me the thrill of using something like Lua, tcl, Pike, and various other lesser-known languages.  If I didn't go out and explore and look for new (to me) languages, I doubt I'd be any good at what I do or have nearly as much fun doing it.  All of the nitty-gritty details of CS and languages aside, it's fun to see how other people have come up with giving the same instructions to a computer; it's all machine-code in the background afterall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't possibly agree with this more than I do .
Day to day , I code in Ruby now and -- despite some 'flaws ' in the language -- I love it .
It 's fast to code in , flows well and I can get the ideas in my head expressed decently .
That being said , I have coded in quite a few languages for fun and to see how they work and how well I work with them .
I love esotoric languages and in their oddness , they have taught me new ways of thinking sometimes , often as a surprise to me .
( My favorite by the way : Rail [ esolangs.org ] -- just a fun language to play with .
) I 've done C , C + + , Java , but they never give me the thrill of using something like Lua , tcl , Pike , and various other lesser-known languages .
If I did n't go out and explore and look for new ( to me ) languages , I doubt I 'd be any good at what I do or have nearly as much fun doing it .
All of the nitty-gritty details of CS and languages aside , it 's fun to see how other people have come up with giving the same instructions to a computer ; it 's all machine-code in the background afterall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't possibly agree with this more than I do.
Day to day, I code in Ruby now and -- despite some 'flaws' in the language -- I love it.
It's fast to code in, flows well and I can get the ideas in my head expressed decently.
That being said, I have coded in quite a few languages for fun and to see how they work and how well I work with them.
I love esotoric languages and in their oddness, they have taught me new ways of thinking sometimes, often as a surprise to me.
(My favorite by the way: Rail [esolangs.org] -- just a fun language to play with.
)  I've done C, C++, Java, but they never give me the thrill of using something like Lua, tcl, Pike, and various other lesser-known languages.
If I didn't go out and explore and look for new (to me) languages, I doubt I'd be any good at what I do or have nearly as much fun doing it.
All of the nitty-gritty details of CS and languages aside, it's fun to see how other people have come up with giving the same instructions to a computer; it's all machine-code in the background afterall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423788</id>
	<title>Variety</title>
	<author>RenHoek</author>
	<datestamp>1268254260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've gone from MSX Basic to Turbo Basic to Turbo C. Now I can code in all kinds of languages, assembly, PHP, Ruby, Javascript, etc..</p><p>I do think that BASIC has value as a first language because it gives back results immediately. Sure, nowadays there are other script languages, so you don't have to go through compiling and all the other complexity. BASIC is valuable because it's just that: basic. You don't have to worry as a first-timer about libraries, include files, functions and everything else. You get down to the very basics like variables and program flow.</p><p>And after a lot of years of BASIC programming I knew the limitations of the language (which largely depends on the interpreter). That's when I switched over to Turbo C. And to be honest it didn't took me long at all to learn C because I was a pretty reasonable BASIC programmer.</p><p>What I \_do\_ object against is stuff like Visual Basic. That's taking a limited language which is simple and jamming it into a place where it shouldn't belong. To let Visual Basic work, they stuffed all kinds of non-original basic stuff in there which make it more complex then something like Visual C. Their idea was "lets make making real application easy with Basic, because Basic is easy right?". It doesn't work like that.</p><p>I also think that Java is not a language that people should start programming in to be honest. Object oriented programming is NOT something people should learn before they had a taste of procedural programming. Fun fact. I went back to my old school to see about taking some night classes to get my CS degree. (I dropped out at the time and I've learned a LOT more on the job then what they were teaching.) At their open house classes I asked about procedural programming and if they still taught it. They scoffed and said nobody uses that anymore. This when I've been a Linux kernel developer for 10+ years now which is 100\% procedural ANSI C. It's all Java they teach nowadays.</p><p>In closing. I think a good programmer is somebody who explores. If I have a Windows application that does something cool, I take it through a disassembler to see what makes it tick. I look up DOT NET C# code snippets to see what it's all about. I look through COBOL and ALGOL source code to see what constructs people used in the past. I patch ARM assembly code to fix bugs. I do all those things and not rigidly stick to a single programming environment. A good programmer is a state of mind, not the language he works in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've gone from MSX Basic to Turbo Basic to Turbo C. Now I can code in all kinds of languages , assembly , PHP , Ruby , Javascript , etc..I do think that BASIC has value as a first language because it gives back results immediately .
Sure , nowadays there are other script languages , so you do n't have to go through compiling and all the other complexity .
BASIC is valuable because it 's just that : basic .
You do n't have to worry as a first-timer about libraries , include files , functions and everything else .
You get down to the very basics like variables and program flow.And after a lot of years of BASIC programming I knew the limitations of the language ( which largely depends on the interpreter ) .
That 's when I switched over to Turbo C. And to be honest it did n't took me long at all to learn C because I was a pretty reasonable BASIC programmer.What I \ _do \ _ object against is stuff like Visual Basic .
That 's taking a limited language which is simple and jamming it into a place where it should n't belong .
To let Visual Basic work , they stuffed all kinds of non-original basic stuff in there which make it more complex then something like Visual C. Their idea was " lets make making real application easy with Basic , because Basic is easy right ? " .
It does n't work like that.I also think that Java is not a language that people should start programming in to be honest .
Object oriented programming is NOT something people should learn before they had a taste of procedural programming .
Fun fact .
I went back to my old school to see about taking some night classes to get my CS degree .
( I dropped out at the time and I 've learned a LOT more on the job then what they were teaching .
) At their open house classes I asked about procedural programming and if they still taught it .
They scoffed and said nobody uses that anymore .
This when I 've been a Linux kernel developer for 10 + years now which is 100 \ % procedural ANSI C. It 's all Java they teach nowadays.In closing .
I think a good programmer is somebody who explores .
If I have a Windows application that does something cool , I take it through a disassembler to see what makes it tick .
I look up DOT NET C # code snippets to see what it 's all about .
I look through COBOL and ALGOL source code to see what constructs people used in the past .
I patch ARM assembly code to fix bugs .
I do all those things and not rigidly stick to a single programming environment .
A good programmer is a state of mind , not the language he works in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've gone from MSX Basic to Turbo Basic to Turbo C. Now I can code in all kinds of languages, assembly, PHP, Ruby, Javascript, etc..I do think that BASIC has value as a first language because it gives back results immediately.
Sure, nowadays there are other script languages, so you don't have to go through compiling and all the other complexity.
BASIC is valuable because it's just that: basic.
You don't have to worry as a first-timer about libraries, include files, functions and everything else.
You get down to the very basics like variables and program flow.And after a lot of years of BASIC programming I knew the limitations of the language (which largely depends on the interpreter).
That's when I switched over to Turbo C. And to be honest it didn't took me long at all to learn C because I was a pretty reasonable BASIC programmer.What I \_do\_ object against is stuff like Visual Basic.
That's taking a limited language which is simple and jamming it into a place where it shouldn't belong.
To let Visual Basic work, they stuffed all kinds of non-original basic stuff in there which make it more complex then something like Visual C. Their idea was "lets make making real application easy with Basic, because Basic is easy right?".
It doesn't work like that.I also think that Java is not a language that people should start programming in to be honest.
Object oriented programming is NOT something people should learn before they had a taste of procedural programming.
Fun fact.
I went back to my old school to see about taking some night classes to get my CS degree.
(I dropped out at the time and I've learned a LOT more on the job then what they were teaching.
) At their open house classes I asked about procedural programming and if they still taught it.
They scoffed and said nobody uses that anymore.
This when I've been a Linux kernel developer for 10+ years now which is 100\% procedural ANSI C. It's all Java they teach nowadays.In closing.
I think a good programmer is somebody who explores.
If I have a Windows application that does something cool, I take it through a disassembler to see what makes it tick.
I look up DOT NET C# code snippets to see what it's all about.
I look through COBOL and ALGOL source code to see what constructs people used in the past.
I patch ARM assembly code to fix bugs.
I do all those things and not rigidly stick to a single programming environment.
A good programmer is a state of mind, not the language he works in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425652</id>
	<title>Didn't I see that posted on ./?</title>
	<author>Sugemax</author>
	<datestamp>1268233980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>BASIC is terrible (Score:0, Troll)
by Ed Dijk (3102)

It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BASIC is terrible ( Score : 0 , Troll ) by Ed Dijk ( 3102 ) It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC : as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BASIC is terrible (Score:0, Troll)
by Ed Dijk (3102)

It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423850</id>
	<title>There's never anything wrong with any language</title>
	<author>zlel</author>
	<datestamp>1268211720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A language may lend itself more naturally to a certain way of thinking, but isn't bending the language for the job the role of the programmer?
I personally agree with the author - I think it's always a good mental workout to work in languages that do not give you the wealth of constructs and libraries of the many language popular today, but more than that, starting out in Basic exposed me to the many dialects of Basic very early in my career such that I'm now used to programming in unfamiliar languages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A language may lend itself more naturally to a certain way of thinking , but is n't bending the language for the job the role of the programmer ?
I personally agree with the author - I think it 's always a good mental workout to work in languages that do not give you the wealth of constructs and libraries of the many language popular today , but more than that , starting out in Basic exposed me to the many dialects of Basic very early in my career such that I 'm now used to programming in unfamiliar languages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A language may lend itself more naturally to a certain way of thinking, but isn't bending the language for the job the role of the programmer?
I personally agree with the author - I think it's always a good mental workout to work in languages that do not give you the wealth of constructs and libraries of the many language popular today, but more than that, starting out in Basic exposed me to the many dialects of Basic very early in my career such that I'm now used to programming in unfamiliar languages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428960</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is great for kids</title>
	<author>Doctor Faustus</author>
	<datestamp>1268249460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Basically, Python can provide all the same benefits as BASIC without the stupid unnecessary crap (Explicit Line numbers? Really? Are we still using punch cards?) that always annoyed me.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd consider Python an educational successor to Pascal, since BASIC never deserved consideration apart from being free with DOS.  Still, the last version of MS Basic to require line numbers came out in 1988, when punch cards really were still routinely used in some places.</p></div></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , Python can provide all the same benefits as BASIC without the stupid unnecessary crap ( Explicit Line numbers ?
Really ? Are we still using punch cards ?
) that always annoyed me.I 'd consider Python an educational successor to Pascal , since BASIC never deserved consideration apart from being free with DOS .
Still , the last version of MS Basic to require line numbers came out in 1988 , when punch cards really were still routinely used in some places .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, Python can provide all the same benefits as BASIC without the stupid unnecessary crap (Explicit Line numbers?
Really? Are we still using punch cards?
) that always annoyed me.I'd consider Python an educational successor to Pascal, since BASIC never deserved consideration apart from being free with DOS.
Still, the last version of MS Basic to require line numbers came out in 1988, when punch cards really were still routinely used in some places.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31431386</id>
	<title>Interesting</title>
	<author>Windwraith</author>
	<datestamp>1268217660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I only know my personal experience, unfortunately no one around me knows how to put code together.<br>Anyway, I started with "GWBASIC" I think, then moved to Quickbasic after some months.</p><p>My target is just making games, not even commercially, just because I love designing them, doing graphics, music... My hobby, not my professional choice.<br>With BASIC, it was easy, and I had the ability to focus on making a tiny, pretty game instead of focusing on the coding part. And it taught me many things about game logic, how things worked behind the scenes.<br>When I got a big, good enough idea, I jumped from QB to C+Lua+SDL+GL, and, in all honesty, it's not hard, just time consuming (fortunately for me)</p><p>The best thing is that, within the constraints of BASIC and a 8086 computer (CGA graphics! 4 putrid colors of WIN!), I learned to optimize code, which is a very valuable thing that, it seems, many game programmers of today weren't exposed to.</p><p>Then again, even with such a skill, I can't consider myself (or many wouldn't consider me) a real programmer, I don't feel capable to writing a desktop application, and I ignore the terminology of things. I can build a house and succeed but I am no architect.</p><p>Still, what this meant to say is that BASIC can surely teach some things, at least as entryway to "logic" which is the most important weapon of a programmer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I only know my personal experience , unfortunately no one around me knows how to put code together.Anyway , I started with " GWBASIC " I think , then moved to Quickbasic after some months.My target is just making games , not even commercially , just because I love designing them , doing graphics , music... My hobby , not my professional choice.With BASIC , it was easy , and I had the ability to focus on making a tiny , pretty game instead of focusing on the coding part .
And it taught me many things about game logic , how things worked behind the scenes.When I got a big , good enough idea , I jumped from QB to C + Lua + SDL + GL , and , in all honesty , it 's not hard , just time consuming ( fortunately for me ) The best thing is that , within the constraints of BASIC and a 8086 computer ( CGA graphics !
4 putrid colors of WIN !
) , I learned to optimize code , which is a very valuable thing that , it seems , many game programmers of today were n't exposed to.Then again , even with such a skill , I ca n't consider myself ( or many would n't consider me ) a real programmer , I do n't feel capable to writing a desktop application , and I ignore the terminology of things .
I can build a house and succeed but I am no architect.Still , what this meant to say is that BASIC can surely teach some things , at least as entryway to " logic " which is the most important weapon of a programmer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only know my personal experience, unfortunately no one around me knows how to put code together.Anyway, I started with "GWBASIC" I think, then moved to Quickbasic after some months.My target is just making games, not even commercially, just because I love designing them, doing graphics, music... My hobby, not my professional choice.With BASIC, it was easy, and I had the ability to focus on making a tiny, pretty game instead of focusing on the coding part.
And it taught me many things about game logic, how things worked behind the scenes.When I got a big, good enough idea, I jumped from QB to C+Lua+SDL+GL, and, in all honesty, it's not hard, just time consuming (fortunately for me)The best thing is that, within the constraints of BASIC and a 8086 computer (CGA graphics!
4 putrid colors of WIN!
), I learned to optimize code, which is a very valuable thing that, it seems, many game programmers of today weren't exposed to.Then again, even with such a skill, I can't consider myself (or many wouldn't consider me) a real programmer, I don't feel capable to writing a desktop application, and I ignore the terminology of things.
I can build a house and succeed but I am no architect.Still, what this meant to say is that BASIC can surely teach some things, at least as entryway to "logic" which is the most important weapon of a programmer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423808</id>
	<title>Back in my day...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268254560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in my day... we didn't have basic...<br>we didn't have Assembler<br>We didn't have machine code<br>we didn't even have ones...<br>we coded in zeros</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in my day... we did n't have basic...we did n't have AssemblerWe did n't have machine codewe did n't even have ones...we coded in zeros</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in my day... we didn't have basic...we didn't have AssemblerWe didn't have machine codewe didn't even have ones...we coded in zeros</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423888</id>
	<title>Easily gotten over</title>
	<author>wrmrxxx</author>
	<datestamp>1268212200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>easy language first your get-over is</p><p>FORTH started I at-all me affected not and</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>easy language first your get-over isFORTH started I at-all me affected not and</tokentext>
<sentencetext>easy language first your get-over isFORTH started I at-all me affected not and</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424930</id>
	<title>Basic is just fine...</title>
	<author>Genda</author>
	<datestamp>1268228700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It had PEEK and POKE... what else do you need<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It had PEEK and POKE... what else do you need : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It had PEEK and POKE... what else do you need :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31430062</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is great for kids</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1268254500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Basically, Python can provide all the same benefits as BASIC without the stupid unnecessary crap (Explicit Line numbers? Really? Are we still using punch cards?) that always annoyed me.</i></p><p>When's the last time you used BASIC? It hasn't had line numbers in decades.</p><p>Man, you were doing such a good job, too, until I got to the part where you made it apparent that you have absolutely no clue what modern BASIC even looks like. Shame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , Python can provide all the same benefits as BASIC without the stupid unnecessary crap ( Explicit Line numbers ?
Really ? Are we still using punch cards ?
) that always annoyed me.When 's the last time you used BASIC ?
It has n't had line numbers in decades.Man , you were doing such a good job , too , until I got to the part where you made it apparent that you have absolutely no clue what modern BASIC even looks like .
Shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, Python can provide all the same benefits as BASIC without the stupid unnecessary crap (Explicit Line numbers?
Really? Are we still using punch cards?
) that always annoyed me.When's the last time you used BASIC?
It hasn't had line numbers in decades.Man, you were doing such a good job, too, until I got to the part where you made it apparent that you have absolutely no clue what modern BASIC even looks like.
Shame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424968</id>
	<title>Re:Bah</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1268229120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Like all eminently quotable people, Dijkstra tended to hyperbole and oversimplification.</p></div><p>Then the obvious conclusion is that all eminently quotable people should be ignored completely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like all eminently quotable people , Dijkstra tended to hyperbole and oversimplification.Then the obvious conclusion is that all eminently quotable people should be ignored completely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like all eminently quotable people, Dijkstra tended to hyperbole and oversimplification.Then the obvious conclusion is that all eminently quotable people should be ignored completely.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427510</id>
	<title>Amanda Seyfried/Julianne Moore love scene?  Check!</title>
	<author>Impy the Impiuos Imp</author>
	<datestamp>1268242620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Modern, Visual Basic-style basic, with full procedures/function calls, full-length symbol naming, and no line numbers, sure.</p><p>Old-school, with line numbers (REN anyone?), 2-letter max variable names, and gotos up the wazoo, no thanks.  And the latter's what I "cut my teeth" on, and I'm the best programmer on the planet.</p><p>Oh, wait.  n/m.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Modern , Visual Basic-style basic , with full procedures/function calls , full-length symbol naming , and no line numbers , sure.Old-school , with line numbers ( REN anyone ?
) , 2-letter max variable names , and gotos up the wazoo , no thanks .
And the latter 's what I " cut my teeth " on , and I 'm the best programmer on the planet.Oh , wait .
n/m .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modern, Visual Basic-style basic, with full procedures/function calls, full-length symbol naming, and no line numbers, sure.Old-school, with line numbers (REN anyone?
), 2-letter max variable names, and gotos up the wazoo, no thanks.
And the latter's what I "cut my teeth" on, and I'm the best programmer on the planet.Oh, wait.
n/m.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426810</id>
	<title>Dijkstra didn't program</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1268239560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't take advice from "programmers" that don't own a computer. If it's mathematics were talking about, big ideas, yes. For actual real world use, that's just plain crazy. If we all followed academia's approach we'd use a functional language and every application would be mathematically provable. Sure it may take a century to complete, but it will be "perfect".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't take advice from " programmers " that do n't own a computer .
If it 's mathematics were talking about , big ideas , yes .
For actual real world use , that 's just plain crazy .
If we all followed academia 's approach we 'd use a functional language and every application would be mathematically provable .
Sure it may take a century to complete , but it will be " perfect " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't take advice from "programmers" that don't own a computer.
If it's mathematics were talking about, big ideas, yes.
For actual real world use, that's just plain crazy.
If we all followed academia's approach we'd use a functional language and every application would be mathematically provable.
Sure it may take a century to complete, but it will be "perfect".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424180</id>
	<title>Azijnpisser...</title>
	<author>2fuf</author>
	<datestamp>1268216160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...is the Dutch word for what I think of Dijkstra.

He's overly negative is his opinions only to impress others and to let off steam built up by his personal frustrations.

Besides his wonderful contributions to CS, he was mainly just a grumpy old man who's opinions have been grossly overrated.

The gems of his work are in his scientific contributions, not in his tantrums.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is the Dutch word for what I think of Dijkstra .
He 's overly negative is his opinions only to impress others and to let off steam built up by his personal frustrations .
Besides his wonderful contributions to CS , he was mainly just a grumpy old man who 's opinions have been grossly overrated .
The gems of his work are in his scientific contributions , not in his tantrums .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is the Dutch word for what I think of Dijkstra.
He's overly negative is his opinions only to impress others and to let off steam built up by his personal frustrations.
Besides his wonderful contributions to CS, he was mainly just a grumpy old man who's opinions have been grossly overrated.
The gems of his work are in his scientific contributions, not in his tantrums.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424126</id>
	<title>Re:Bah!</title>
	<author>badran</author>
	<datestamp>1268215500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good reads from 13 years ago....<br><a href="http://www.petesqbsite.com/sections/tutorials/tutorials/tutor2.htm" title="petesqbsite.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.petesqbsite.com/sections/tutorials/tutorials/tutor2.htm</a> [petesqbsite.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good reads from 13 years ago....http : //www.petesqbsite.com/sections/tutorials/tutorials/tutor2.htm [ petesqbsite.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good reads from 13 years ago....http://www.petesqbsite.com/sections/tutorials/tutorials/tutor2.htm [petesqbsite.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423962</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is great for kids</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268213040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>5-6 year olds are just learning how to READ and you expect them to be able to learn to program?!  o\_O`</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>5-6 year olds are just learning how to READ and you expect them to be able to learn to program ? !
o \ _O `</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5-6 year olds are just learning how to READ and you expect them to be able to learn to program?!
o\_O`</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425754</id>
	<title>BASIC code is awful if left untended</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1268234640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most languages sort of enforce a framework whether you like it or not.  Not BASIC.</p><p>When I was a kid and I learned BASIC, I thought it was hot shit.  And I didn't have a great amount of trouble learning Pascal.</p><p>But, when I got older and I started programming in C++ and eventually in PHP, I noticed that almost nothing from BASIC carried over.  If it weren't for iterative loops, I think there would be nothing of value to come out of BASIC in learning other languages.  Even in Visual BASIC, it's astonishing the number of times you end up using a C-like structure just because that's what works best.</p><p>The only thing BASIC really does is offer an easy gateway into programming.  Is that good enough?  I don't know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most languages sort of enforce a framework whether you like it or not .
Not BASIC.When I was a kid and I learned BASIC , I thought it was hot shit .
And I did n't have a great amount of trouble learning Pascal.But , when I got older and I started programming in C + + and eventually in PHP , I noticed that almost nothing from BASIC carried over .
If it were n't for iterative loops , I think there would be nothing of value to come out of BASIC in learning other languages .
Even in Visual BASIC , it 's astonishing the number of times you end up using a C-like structure just because that 's what works best.The only thing BASIC really does is offer an easy gateway into programming .
Is that good enough ?
I do n't know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most languages sort of enforce a framework whether you like it or not.
Not BASIC.When I was a kid and I learned BASIC, I thought it was hot shit.
And I didn't have a great amount of trouble learning Pascal.But, when I got older and I started programming in C++ and eventually in PHP, I noticed that almost nothing from BASIC carried over.
If it weren't for iterative loops, I think there would be nothing of value to come out of BASIC in learning other languages.
Even in Visual BASIC, it's astonishing the number of times you end up using a C-like structure just because that's what works best.The only thing BASIC really does is offer an easy gateway into programming.
Is that good enough?
I don't know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423722</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268253540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't agree more. It's the person that matters and not what language they started out with. A good programmer will notice the limitations of a language and quickly switch to better programming methods when they are made available in a new language.</p><p>I started out with BASIC (gwbasic) on PC-XT (the ones before 286) around 1991. Now, I'm a full time kernel programmer working on embedded systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't agree more .
It 's the person that matters and not what language they started out with .
A good programmer will notice the limitations of a language and quickly switch to better programming methods when they are made available in a new language.I started out with BASIC ( gwbasic ) on PC-XT ( the ones before 286 ) around 1991 .
Now , I 'm a full time kernel programmer working on embedded systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't agree more.
It's the person that matters and not what language they started out with.
A good programmer will notice the limitations of a language and quickly switch to better programming methods when they are made available in a new language.I started out with BASIC (gwbasic) on PC-XT (the ones before 286) around 1991.
Now, I'm a full time kernel programmer working on embedded systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425052</id>
	<title>Mootest point ever</title>
	<author>Vexorian</author>
	<datestamp>1268230500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aren't there excellent programmers  that started in <i>any</i> language? Heck, I started with mIRC scripts and even <i>THAT</i> was enough for me to develop logic...  Whether there are excellent programmers that started with Basic or not, there would be no easy way they are 'excellent' because of BASIC and not despite that...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't there excellent programmers that started in any language ?
Heck , I started with mIRC scripts and even THAT was enough for me to develop logic... Whether there are excellent programmers that started with Basic or not , there would be no easy way they are 'excellent ' because of BASIC and not despite that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't there excellent programmers  that started in any language?
Heck, I started with mIRC scripts and even THAT was enough for me to develop logic...  Whether there are excellent programmers that started with Basic or not, there would be no easy way they are 'excellent' because of BASIC and not despite that...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423678</id>
	<title>That might be right...</title>
	<author>Robert Zenz</author>
	<datestamp>1268253180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...but does totally depend on the programmer himself. BASIC (including VB6, VB.NET) gives you many bad habits and wrong estimations about how programming is (Case-Sensitivity, Implicit Type-Casting...). It's an easy to learn language, but you \_have\_ to look beyond your own nose if you wanna start with a C-like language afterwards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but does totally depend on the programmer himself .
BASIC ( including VB6 , VB.NET ) gives you many bad habits and wrong estimations about how programming is ( Case-Sensitivity , Implicit Type-Casting... ) .
It 's an easy to learn language , but you \ _have \ _ to look beyond your own nose if you wan na start with a C-like language afterwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but does totally depend on the programmer himself.
BASIC (including VB6, VB.NET) gives you many bad habits and wrong estimations about how programming is (Case-Sensitivity, Implicit Type-Casting...).
It's an easy to learn language, but you \_have\_ to look beyond your own nose if you wanna start with a C-like language afterwards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427670</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>martyros</author>
	<datestamp>1268243340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the original "Goto considered harmful" paper, and most of the reasons cited don't apply in many modern languages.
</p><p>For example, one reason against using "goto" was that in BASIC, you jumped to a line number.  This meant that any statement in the program was potentially a target for goto; writing code with the idea that someone somewhere might jump right into the middle was considered too much cognitive overhead.
</p><p>In C, however, there are no line numbers; you jump to a label.  That means (1) if there's no label, you can be sure no one is going to jump there and (2) if you see a label in the code, you can be pretty sure that there *is* a goto somewhere, and you should do a search to find out where.
</p><p>I think the problem is that many people coming from languages like BASIC have goto as their main model of branching, which really needs to be un-learned.  Use goto for that special exception where the normal branching mechanisms (if, while/for, switch, &amp;c) don't fit the program logic cleanly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the original " Goto considered harmful " paper , and most of the reasons cited do n't apply in many modern languages .
For example , one reason against using " goto " was that in BASIC , you jumped to a line number .
This meant that any statement in the program was potentially a target for goto ; writing code with the idea that someone somewhere might jump right into the middle was considered too much cognitive overhead .
In C , however , there are no line numbers ; you jump to a label .
That means ( 1 ) if there 's no label , you can be sure no one is going to jump there and ( 2 ) if you see a label in the code , you can be pretty sure that there * is * a goto somewhere , and you should do a search to find out where .
I think the problem is that many people coming from languages like BASIC have goto as their main model of branching , which really needs to be un-learned .
Use goto for that special exception where the normal branching mechanisms ( if , while/for , switch , &amp;c ) do n't fit the program logic cleanly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the original "Goto considered harmful" paper, and most of the reasons cited don't apply in many modern languages.
For example, one reason against using "goto" was that in BASIC, you jumped to a line number.
This meant that any statement in the program was potentially a target for goto; writing code with the idea that someone somewhere might jump right into the middle was considered too much cognitive overhead.
In C, however, there are no line numbers; you jump to a label.
That means (1) if there's no label, you can be sure no one is going to jump there and (2) if you see a label in the code, you can be pretty sure that there *is* a goto somewhere, and you should do a search to find out where.
I think the problem is that many people coming from languages like BASIC have goto as their main model of branching, which really needs to be un-learned.
Use goto for that special exception where the normal branching mechanisms (if, while/for, switch, &amp;c) don't fit the program logic cleanly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426620</id>
	<title>BASIC a gateway to assembly.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268238660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the 80s, BASIC had no compound objects, conditional blocks had to be coded as conditional jumps to numeric line positions: machine code didn't seem too different, and was a necessary step to get anything to run at a decent speed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the 80s , BASIC had no compound objects , conditional blocks had to be coded as conditional jumps to numeric line positions : machine code did n't seem too different , and was a necessary step to get anything to run at a decent speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the 80s, BASIC had no compound objects, conditional blocks had to be coded as conditional jumps to numeric line positions: machine code didn't seem too different, and was a necessary step to get anything to run at a decent speed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423746</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1268253720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I learned in Fortran (I should qualify this by pointing out that I'm not a particularly good programmer) but it seems to me that writing logical code that uses GOTO statements would be a good introduction to computer logic. A complex program may become unreadable, but as a learning tool I could see that it might have merit. Good coding is about understanding logical procedure (and comments).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I learned in Fortran ( I should qualify this by pointing out that I 'm not a particularly good programmer ) but it seems to me that writing logical code that uses GOTO statements would be a good introduction to computer logic .
A complex program may become unreadable , but as a learning tool I could see that it might have merit .
Good coding is about understanding logical procedure ( and comments ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I learned in Fortran (I should qualify this by pointing out that I'm not a particularly good programmer) but it seems to me that writing logical code that uses GOTO statements would be a good introduction to computer logic.
A complex program may become unreadable, but as a learning tool I could see that it might have merit.
Good coding is about understanding logical procedure (and comments).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424710</id>
	<title>Amstrad CPC Basic was superb</title>
	<author>Viol8</author>
	<datestamp>1268225100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It didn't have procedures like BBC Basic unfortunately , but what it did have was a simple type of multithreading. It had the AFTER and EVERY keywords which meant you could get the interpreter to call a subroutine once or all the time after a certain number of clock ticks. When I moved on to real multithreading in C then C++ my experience learnt on this helped me immensely since the race conditions you could get in posix threads are nothing compared to those that you can get in a multithreaded Basic language where all variables are global and there is no locking!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It did n't have procedures like BBC Basic unfortunately , but what it did have was a simple type of multithreading .
It had the AFTER and EVERY keywords which meant you could get the interpreter to call a subroutine once or all the time after a certain number of clock ticks .
When I moved on to real multithreading in C then C + + my experience learnt on this helped me immensely since the race conditions you could get in posix threads are nothing compared to those that you can get in a multithreaded Basic language where all variables are global and there is no locking !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It didn't have procedures like BBC Basic unfortunately , but what it did have was a simple type of multithreading.
It had the AFTER and EVERY keywords which meant you could get the interpreter to call a subroutine once or all the time after a certain number of clock ticks.
When I moved on to real multithreading in C then C++ my experience learnt on this helped me immensely since the race conditions you could get in posix threads are nothing compared to those that you can get in a multithreaded Basic language where all variables are global and there is no locking!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425152</id>
	<title>BASIC needs to be viewed in context</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268231460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BASIC was a perfect language for a world that did not grow up with digital technology. It didn't require a lot of book time, it didn't require much project  planning, and it didn't require an appreciation of abstract computing disciplines. Never underestimate the value of a language that produces results after one line of code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BASIC was a perfect language for a world that did not grow up with digital technology .
It did n't require a lot of book time , it did n't require much project planning , and it did n't require an appreciation of abstract computing disciplines .
Never underestimate the value of a language that produces results after one line of code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BASIC was a perfect language for a world that did not grow up with digital technology.
It didn't require a lot of book time, it didn't require much project  planning, and it didn't require an appreciation of abstract computing disciplines.
Never underestimate the value of a language that produces results after one line of code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423970</id>
	<title>BBC BASIC</title>
	<author>tomalpha</author>
	<datestamp>1268213280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I cut my teeth on BBC BASIC back in the 80's. It was simple, powerful, let you do pretty much anything and best of all came with a built in assembler. Now that was <i>really</i> neat.And it just worked. It was easy to optimise individual subroutines in assembler. This was age 10. At my simple state school with a couple of BBC Model Bs in the corner, I wasn't the only one doing that either.</p><p>I make a living writing C++ now and seem to do fairly well at it. The kids coming out of university that I interview these days haven't touched BASIC, or C++ for that matter. We want them to write good C++ when they come and work for us. The intelligent ones adapt easily to working with pointers etc. The less able ones that have somehow made it through the interview process struggle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I cut my teeth on BBC BASIC back in the 80 's .
It was simple , powerful , let you do pretty much anything and best of all came with a built in assembler .
Now that was really neat.And it just worked .
It was easy to optimise individual subroutines in assembler .
This was age 10 .
At my simple state school with a couple of BBC Model Bs in the corner , I was n't the only one doing that either.I make a living writing C + + now and seem to do fairly well at it .
The kids coming out of university that I interview these days have n't touched BASIC , or C + + for that matter .
We want them to write good C + + when they come and work for us .
The intelligent ones adapt easily to working with pointers etc .
The less able ones that have somehow made it through the interview process struggle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cut my teeth on BBC BASIC back in the 80's.
It was simple, powerful, let you do pretty much anything and best of all came with a built in assembler.
Now that was really neat.And it just worked.
It was easy to optimise individual subroutines in assembler.
This was age 10.
At my simple state school with a couple of BBC Model Bs in the corner, I wasn't the only one doing that either.I make a living writing C++ now and seem to do fairly well at it.
The kids coming out of university that I interview these days haven't touched BASIC, or C++ for that matter.
We want them to write good C++ when they come and work for us.
The intelligent ones adapt easily to working with pointers etc.
The less able ones that have somehow made it through the interview process struggle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424064</id>
	<title>VisualBasic would like to disagree</title>
	<author>the\_raptor</author>
	<datestamp>1268214780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who remembers when VisualBasic was heavily used knows BASIC doesn't teach people to be better programs. Even C or any other "good" functional language doesn't teach you what not to do. As the saying goes C++ will not only let you shoot yourself in the foot it will load the gun and cock it. I don't think you even realise most of the major programming pitfalls until you have done a major project or gone back years later to maintain your own code (and spent more time trying to figure out your logic than it took you to write it in the first place). I started off with BASIC* (on Win 3.1 machines) but that was only because it was the only programming language that nearly every computer had. These days there are so many easier, more powerful, and just plain better "teaching" languages and toolkits.</p><p>If you just want to teach a kids the real raw mechanics of what a computer does let them lose with an ASM-like language and a simple CPU simulator (there are various robot simulators out there, or you could even invest in a real robotics platform). If you want them to learn to program there are much better tools out there to achieve that than BASIC.</p><p>* And only learned how to really program when I got my hands on Pascal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who remembers when VisualBasic was heavily used knows BASIC does n't teach people to be better programs .
Even C or any other " good " functional language does n't teach you what not to do .
As the saying goes C + + will not only let you shoot yourself in the foot it will load the gun and cock it .
I do n't think you even realise most of the major programming pitfalls until you have done a major project or gone back years later to maintain your own code ( and spent more time trying to figure out your logic than it took you to write it in the first place ) .
I started off with BASIC * ( on Win 3.1 machines ) but that was only because it was the only programming language that nearly every computer had .
These days there are so many easier , more powerful , and just plain better " teaching " languages and toolkits.If you just want to teach a kids the real raw mechanics of what a computer does let them lose with an ASM-like language and a simple CPU simulator ( there are various robot simulators out there , or you could even invest in a real robotics platform ) .
If you want them to learn to program there are much better tools out there to achieve that than BASIC .
* And only learned how to really program when I got my hands on Pascal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who remembers when VisualBasic was heavily used knows BASIC doesn't teach people to be better programs.
Even C or any other "good" functional language doesn't teach you what not to do.
As the saying goes C++ will not only let you shoot yourself in the foot it will load the gun and cock it.
I don't think you even realise most of the major programming pitfalls until you have done a major project or gone back years later to maintain your own code (and spent more time trying to figure out your logic than it took you to write it in the first place).
I started off with BASIC* (on Win 3.1 machines) but that was only because it was the only programming language that nearly every computer had.
These days there are so many easier, more powerful, and just plain better "teaching" languages and toolkits.If you just want to teach a kids the real raw mechanics of what a computer does let them lose with an ASM-like language and a simple CPU simulator (there are various robot simulators out there, or you could even invest in a real robotics platform).
If you want them to learn to program there are much better tools out there to achieve that than BASIC.
* And only learned how to really program when I got my hands on Pascal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424620</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268223660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Knuth's proof that you *can* do structured programming with goto statements is not a proof that you *should* do structured programming with goto statements.</p><p><i>Knuth won</i></p><p>Citation required.</p><p>By and large, the use of goto is harmful.  Error handling in plain C is the counterexample (see the Linux kernel for some excellent examples), but programming in plain C is considered harmful under almost all circumstances anyway.  Kernel hackers know when and when not to use goto.  For everyone else, the advice to avoid goto is still sound advice.</p><p>Remember, advice does not follow boolean logic.  Advice can be <i>not absolutely true</i> while remaining <i>useful</i>.  Realizing the advice was not 100\% true is a part of "growing up" as a practitioner, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.  Dijkstra was right more often than anyone you are ever likely to talk to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Knuth 's proof that you * can * do structured programming with goto statements is not a proof that you * should * do structured programming with goto statements.Knuth wonCitation required.By and large , the use of goto is harmful .
Error handling in plain C is the counterexample ( see the Linux kernel for some excellent examples ) , but programming in plain C is considered harmful under almost all circumstances anyway .
Kernel hackers know when and when not to use goto .
For everyone else , the advice to avoid goto is still sound advice.Remember , advice does not follow boolean logic .
Advice can be not absolutely true while remaining useful .
Realizing the advice was not 100 \ % true is a part of " growing up " as a practitioner , but do n't throw the baby out with the bath water .
Dijkstra was right more often than anyone you are ever likely to talk to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Knuth's proof that you *can* do structured programming with goto statements is not a proof that you *should* do structured programming with goto statements.Knuth wonCitation required.By and large, the use of goto is harmful.
Error handling in plain C is the counterexample (see the Linux kernel for some excellent examples), but programming in plain C is considered harmful under almost all circumstances anyway.
Kernel hackers know when and when not to use goto.
For everyone else, the advice to avoid goto is still sound advice.Remember, advice does not follow boolean logic.
Advice can be not absolutely true while remaining useful.
Realizing the advice was not 100\% true is a part of "growing up" as a practitioner, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Dijkstra was right more often than anyone you are ever likely to talk to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427382</id>
	<title>Says the man who does not know HTML links</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268241960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dijsktra was right. The debate about GOTO statements was done in the framework of the emerging structure-programing style. Even Knuth says in that article:<blockquote><div><p> <i>"From these remarks it is clear that sequential composition, iteration, and conditional statements present syntactic structures that the eye can readily assimilate; but a <b>go to</b> statement does not. The visual structure of <b>go to</b> statements is like that of flowcharts, except reduced to one dimension in our source languages."</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>

With the introduction of exceptions and structured error handling, there is no compelling case for continuing using GOTOs. Java, Python, Ruby and many others modern languages does not have goto, and no one seems to miss it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dijsktra was right .
The debate about GOTO statements was done in the framework of the emerging structure-programing style .
Even Knuth says in that article : " From these remarks it is clear that sequential composition , iteration , and conditional statements present syntactic structures that the eye can readily assimilate ; but a go to statement does not .
The visual structure of go to statements is like that of flowcharts , except reduced to one dimension in our source languages .
" With the introduction of exceptions and structured error handling , there is no compelling case for continuing using GOTOs .
Java , Python , Ruby and many others modern languages does not have goto , and no one seems to miss it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dijsktra was right.
The debate about GOTO statements was done in the framework of the emerging structure-programing style.
Even Knuth says in that article: "From these remarks it is clear that sequential composition, iteration, and conditional statements present syntactic structures that the eye can readily assimilate; but a go to statement does not.
The visual structure of go to statements is like that of flowcharts, except reduced to one dimension in our source languages.
" 

With the introduction of exceptions and structured error handling, there is no compelling case for continuing using GOTOs.
Java, Python, Ruby and many others modern languages does not have goto, and no one seems to miss it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426470</id>
	<title>Re:Funny argument</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1268238060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But even code with line numbers could be nice - consider BBC BASIC. It has all the constructs you need to write nice code (named procedures etc), but still has line numbers. The main problem with the older BASICs were that all variables were global, there was no scoping at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But even code with line numbers could be nice - consider BBC BASIC .
It has all the constructs you need to write nice code ( named procedures etc ) , but still has line numbers .
The main problem with the older BASICs were that all variables were global , there was no scoping at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But even code with line numbers could be nice - consider BBC BASIC.
It has all the constructs you need to write nice code (named procedures etc), but still has line numbers.
The main problem with the older BASICs were that all variables were global, there was no scoping at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427068</id>
	<title>BASIC rocks!</title>
	<author>Spit</author>
	<datestamp>1268240640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best I used was on the SinclairQL; beautiful and almost Pascal like, you could create advanced programs without much effort. But the real beauty of BASIC was on the 8-bit systems, really sucky dialects like Commodore basic 2 made you hit the hardware to do anything meaningful so it was a short step to assembly.</p><p>A good environment for tinkering with basic is the ZX Spectrum emulator BASin. It has advanced tools for coding and debugging, as well as creating assets for games etc. Sinclair basic really is one of the nicest around with plenty of good doco.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best I used was on the SinclairQL ; beautiful and almost Pascal like , you could create advanced programs without much effort .
But the real beauty of BASIC was on the 8-bit systems , really sucky dialects like Commodore basic 2 made you hit the hardware to do anything meaningful so it was a short step to assembly.A good environment for tinkering with basic is the ZX Spectrum emulator BASin .
It has advanced tools for coding and debugging , as well as creating assets for games etc .
Sinclair basic really is one of the nicest around with plenty of good doco .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best I used was on the SinclairQL; beautiful and almost Pascal like, you could create advanced programs without much effort.
But the real beauty of BASIC was on the 8-bit systems, really sucky dialects like Commodore basic 2 made you hit the hardware to do anything meaningful so it was a short step to assembly.A good environment for tinkering with basic is the ZX Spectrum emulator BASin.
It has advanced tools for coding and debugging, as well as creating assets for games etc.
Sinclair basic really is one of the nicest around with plenty of good doco.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423934</id>
	<title>Back when i was 11..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268212620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>my mother draged home a 286 from work. I knew nothing, but i poked and i prodded and finally learned that exe files were programs. I stumbled upon qbasic.exe and did'nt understand what it was. I pressed F1 and the help appeared. I read it all many times and my programming carrer took of fromt here. It took several years before i left basic for C and ASM.</p><p>Today i have no problems getting my work commited to the Asterisk project. The guy is full of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>my mother draged home a 286 from work .
I knew nothing , but i poked and i prodded and finally learned that exe files were programs .
I stumbled upon qbasic.exe and did'nt understand what it was .
I pressed F1 and the help appeared .
I read it all many times and my programming carrer took of fromt here .
It took several years before i left basic for C and ASM.Today i have no problems getting my work commited to the Asterisk project .
The guy is full of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my mother draged home a 286 from work.
I knew nothing, but i poked and i prodded and finally learned that exe files were programs.
I stumbled upon qbasic.exe and did'nt understand what it was.
I pressed F1 and the help appeared.
I read it all many times and my programming carrer took of fromt here.
It took several years before i left basic for C and ASM.Today i have no problems getting my work commited to the Asterisk project.
The guy is full of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428340</id>
	<title>it teaches you what NOT to do</title>
	<author>josepha48</author>
	<datestamp>1268246640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you can do so many things in basic and so often they are all bad things to do.  the use of goto for looking is a bad practice.  I will say that MS took it to a level that made it visually easy for people to make large ugly coded programs that did lots of things that people would now write in java/c# today</htmltext>
<tokenext>you can do so many things in basic and so often they are all bad things to do .
the use of goto for looking is a bad practice .
I will say that MS took it to a level that made it visually easy for people to make large ugly coded programs that did lots of things that people would now write in java/c # today</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can do so many things in basic and so often they are all bad things to do.
the use of goto for looking is a bad practice.
I will say that MS took it to a level that made it visually easy for people to make large ugly coded programs that did lots of things that people would now write in java/c# today</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427722</id>
	<title>Re:It wasn't all that great...</title>
	<author>ender-</author>
	<datestamp>1268243520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...but it was BASIC. And the expectations were so low. "10 PRINT "Hello, World!", "20 GOTO 10" and it started doing something. The programming manual was well worn by the time I was 10, would that have happened with any other language? I doubt it. Things like lack of scoping makes the easy things easier and the hard things harder. The point isn't to learn everything from your first language, the point is to get started and interested at all. Moving to DOS was sorta ok, but moving to Windows killed my interest. C/C++ was just horribly complicated,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>I wonder about this these days. While I have no desire to push my daughter to be a programmer, I do want her to have some basic understanding of how the computer works underneath. She's almost 5 now and loves to play games on the computer, mostly educational things like Jumpstart. By the time she was 3.5, she could turn on the [Windows] computer, log in [no password], start Firefox, and navigate through the various websites we had set up on her bookmark bar. She could go to and start the games she wanted, and watch the videos she wanted.</p><p>That's all well and good, but what is her motivation to take the next step? Back in the day, kids got excited by computers. They were new, and interesting and CLI-based. Turn on the computer and it dropped you to a command prompt, or in some cases, straight to a BASIC programming prompt. To do ANYTHING on the computer largely required that you learn at least a little bit about typing out and writing what you wanted the computer to do.<br>On top of that, many of the computers came with some kind of guide or handbook explaining BASIC and what it could do. It was painfully easy after looking at the manual to type:<br>10 print "My sister has cooties"<br>20 goto 10</p><p>Tada!  After 2 minutes of reading and 30 seconds of typing you had a working program. From there it was fairly small steps as you found out how to do this thing or that thing that the computer was capable of.</p><p>But now? First of all, computers are ubiquitous. To my daughter a computer is just a tool for playing games and watching videos, and no real knowledge is required to do almost anything you want on the computer. A few mouse clicks and the game starts or the web-page loads. There's no introduction to the underlying basis of how all those things work and are created.</p><p>Then there's the fact that today a kid grows up with the computer booting up straight to a GUI.  Windows comes with no real programming capabilities. Linux comes with bash, or perl or maybe python installed, but those are largely text-based languages. Is a child who is used to the computer throwing fancy graphics at them going to get excited about making the computer type out a few lines of text? They don't want to write a text-adventure game [which they've likely never played]. They are going to want to write a 3D Fantasy RPG. That's not something that a kid is likely to look at and find that it's quickly possible. To a large extent, the jump to making a GUI window and then making it do much of anything is significantly more complicated.</p><p>How are kids today going to have their imagination sparked and given the opportunity to even think that they can, with just a little bit of work, make the computer do useful things? Or to even think of writing such things themselves rather than thinking, "Oh I need my computer to do this, I'll just Google for one of the hundreds of programs that already do what I want, or load up Synaptic and download one of them."?</p><p>I'm sure there ARE kids who see that potential and search it out, but I think it is much less common than it was 35 or even 20 years ago. Are we going to have a shortage of people who are really deeply interested in programming and how computers work, leaving us with only those who didn't start programming until they got to college and decided maybe programming could be a reasonable career path?</p><p>As she grows and starts improving in her reading, how do I introduce my daughter to the idea that she can not only consume what's handed to her on the computer, but can actually make the computer do cool things herself?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but it was BASIC .
And the expectations were so low .
" 10 PRINT " Hello , World !
" , " 20 GOTO 10 " and it started doing something .
The programming manual was well worn by the time I was 10 , would that have happened with any other language ?
I doubt it .
Things like lack of scoping makes the easy things easier and the hard things harder .
The point is n't to learn everything from your first language , the point is to get started and interested at all .
Moving to DOS was sorta ok , but moving to Windows killed my interest .
C/C + + was just horribly complicated , ...I wonder about this these days .
While I have no desire to push my daughter to be a programmer , I do want her to have some basic understanding of how the computer works underneath .
She 's almost 5 now and loves to play games on the computer , mostly educational things like Jumpstart .
By the time she was 3.5 , she could turn on the [ Windows ] computer , log in [ no password ] , start Firefox , and navigate through the various websites we had set up on her bookmark bar .
She could go to and start the games she wanted , and watch the videos she wanted.That 's all well and good , but what is her motivation to take the next step ?
Back in the day , kids got excited by computers .
They were new , and interesting and CLI-based .
Turn on the computer and it dropped you to a command prompt , or in some cases , straight to a BASIC programming prompt .
To do ANYTHING on the computer largely required that you learn at least a little bit about typing out and writing what you wanted the computer to do.On top of that , many of the computers came with some kind of guide or handbook explaining BASIC and what it could do .
It was painfully easy after looking at the manual to type : 10 print " My sister has cooties " 20 goto 10Tada !
After 2 minutes of reading and 30 seconds of typing you had a working program .
From there it was fairly small steps as you found out how to do this thing or that thing that the computer was capable of.But now ?
First of all , computers are ubiquitous .
To my daughter a computer is just a tool for playing games and watching videos , and no real knowledge is required to do almost anything you want on the computer .
A few mouse clicks and the game starts or the web-page loads .
There 's no introduction to the underlying basis of how all those things work and are created.Then there 's the fact that today a kid grows up with the computer booting up straight to a GUI .
Windows comes with no real programming capabilities .
Linux comes with bash , or perl or maybe python installed , but those are largely text-based languages .
Is a child who is used to the computer throwing fancy graphics at them going to get excited about making the computer type out a few lines of text ?
They do n't want to write a text-adventure game [ which they 've likely never played ] .
They are going to want to write a 3D Fantasy RPG .
That 's not something that a kid is likely to look at and find that it 's quickly possible .
To a large extent , the jump to making a GUI window and then making it do much of anything is significantly more complicated.How are kids today going to have their imagination sparked and given the opportunity to even think that they can , with just a little bit of work , make the computer do useful things ?
Or to even think of writing such things themselves rather than thinking , " Oh I need my computer to do this , I 'll just Google for one of the hundreds of programs that already do what I want , or load up Synaptic and download one of them .
" ? I 'm sure there ARE kids who see that potential and search it out , but I think it is much less common than it was 35 or even 20 years ago .
Are we going to have a shortage of people who are really deeply interested in programming and how computers work , leaving us with only those who did n't start programming until they got to college and decided maybe programming could be a reasonable career path ? As she grows and starts improving in her reading , how do I introduce my daughter to the idea that she can not only consume what 's handed to her on the computer , but can actually make the computer do cool things herself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but it was BASIC.
And the expectations were so low.
"10 PRINT "Hello, World!
", "20 GOTO 10" and it started doing something.
The programming manual was well worn by the time I was 10, would that have happened with any other language?
I doubt it.
Things like lack of scoping makes the easy things easier and the hard things harder.
The point isn't to learn everything from your first language, the point is to get started and interested at all.
Moving to DOS was sorta ok, but moving to Windows killed my interest.
C/C++ was just horribly complicated, ...I wonder about this these days.
While I have no desire to push my daughter to be a programmer, I do want her to have some basic understanding of how the computer works underneath.
She's almost 5 now and loves to play games on the computer, mostly educational things like Jumpstart.
By the time she was 3.5, she could turn on the [Windows] computer, log in [no password], start Firefox, and navigate through the various websites we had set up on her bookmark bar.
She could go to and start the games she wanted, and watch the videos she wanted.That's all well and good, but what is her motivation to take the next step?
Back in the day, kids got excited by computers.
They were new, and interesting and CLI-based.
Turn on the computer and it dropped you to a command prompt, or in some cases, straight to a BASIC programming prompt.
To do ANYTHING on the computer largely required that you learn at least a little bit about typing out and writing what you wanted the computer to do.On top of that, many of the computers came with some kind of guide or handbook explaining BASIC and what it could do.
It was painfully easy after looking at the manual to type:10 print "My sister has cooties"20 goto 10Tada!
After 2 minutes of reading and 30 seconds of typing you had a working program.
From there it was fairly small steps as you found out how to do this thing or that thing that the computer was capable of.But now?
First of all, computers are ubiquitous.
To my daughter a computer is just a tool for playing games and watching videos, and no real knowledge is required to do almost anything you want on the computer.
A few mouse clicks and the game starts or the web-page loads.
There's no introduction to the underlying basis of how all those things work and are created.Then there's the fact that today a kid grows up with the computer booting up straight to a GUI.
Windows comes with no real programming capabilities.
Linux comes with bash, or perl or maybe python installed, but those are largely text-based languages.
Is a child who is used to the computer throwing fancy graphics at them going to get excited about making the computer type out a few lines of text?
They don't want to write a text-adventure game [which they've likely never played].
They are going to want to write a 3D Fantasy RPG.
That's not something that a kid is likely to look at and find that it's quickly possible.
To a large extent, the jump to making a GUI window and then making it do much of anything is significantly more complicated.How are kids today going to have their imagination sparked and given the opportunity to even think that they can, with just a little bit of work, make the computer do useful things?
Or to even think of writing such things themselves rather than thinking, "Oh I need my computer to do this, I'll just Google for one of the hundreds of programs that already do what I want, or load up Synaptic and download one of them.
"?I'm sure there ARE kids who see that potential and search it out, but I think it is much less common than it was 35 or even 20 years ago.
Are we going to have a shortage of people who are really deeply interested in programming and how computers work, leaving us with only those who didn't start programming until they got to college and decided maybe programming could be a reasonable career path?As she grows and starts improving in her reading, how do I introduce my daughter to the idea that she can not only consume what's handed to her on the computer, but can actually make the computer do cool things herself?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428058</id>
	<title>Nirvana Quest</title>
	<author>strangeattraction</author>
	<datestamp>1268245080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dijkstra...isn't he that guy that built the crazy computer in Star Trek. Just kidding or am I. All programmers should start out in assembly. This will weed out those that are not serious. Knuth realized this long ago. They should then be made to program in a language I invented called GOTO where everything is a goto statement. This will show them exactly what they are giving up when they go to languages without gotos. Then I would have them write programs that are all in one file and only in caps. See how they like that. And finally I would have them write programs in some kind of XML based language like XSLT (ick).  And just so they don't whine about their fancy IDEs they have to write a COBOL compiler in COBOL with punch cards. If they still want to be programmers, we can let them cut their teeth on Scheme for a couple of years using only ed (text editor). Then and Only then should they be allowed to even view Java or any other OO programming language. Amen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dijkstra...is n't he that guy that built the crazy computer in Star Trek .
Just kidding or am I. All programmers should start out in assembly .
This will weed out those that are not serious .
Knuth realized this long ago .
They should then be made to program in a language I invented called GOTO where everything is a goto statement .
This will show them exactly what they are giving up when they go to languages without gotos .
Then I would have them write programs that are all in one file and only in caps .
See how they like that .
And finally I would have them write programs in some kind of XML based language like XSLT ( ick ) .
And just so they do n't whine about their fancy IDEs they have to write a COBOL compiler in COBOL with punch cards .
If they still want to be programmers , we can let them cut their teeth on Scheme for a couple of years using only ed ( text editor ) .
Then and Only then should they be allowed to even view Java or any other OO programming language .
Amen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dijkstra...isn't he that guy that built the crazy computer in Star Trek.
Just kidding or am I. All programmers should start out in assembly.
This will weed out those that are not serious.
Knuth realized this long ago.
They should then be made to program in a language I invented called GOTO where everything is a goto statement.
This will show them exactly what they are giving up when they go to languages without gotos.
Then I would have them write programs that are all in one file and only in caps.
See how they like that.
And finally I would have them write programs in some kind of XML based language like XSLT (ick).
And just so they don't whine about their fancy IDEs they have to write a COBOL compiler in COBOL with punch cards.
If they still want to be programmers, we can let them cut their teeth on Scheme for a couple of years using only ed (text editor).
Then and Only then should they be allowed to even view Java or any other OO programming language.
Amen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425080</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is irrelevant</title>
	<author>biryokumaru</author>
	<datestamp>1268230680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We had to do Ada for CS 101, which wasn't awful, but didn't seem like a very solid language to have to use after spending High School teaching myself rudimentary usage of ASM/C/C++/Java/C#.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We had to do Ada for CS 101 , which was n't awful , but did n't seem like a very solid language to have to use after spending High School teaching myself rudimentary usage of ASM/C/C + + /Java/C # .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We had to do Ada for CS 101, which wasn't awful, but didn't seem like a very solid language to have to use after spending High School teaching myself rudimentary usage of ASM/C/C++/Java/C#.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423718</id>
	<title>There is value in BASIC</title>
	<author>JazzXP</author>
	<datestamp>1268253480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's what I started on, and learning the fundementals such as if/else, do/while, variables, arrays, etc will give you a massive head start on any programming course in the future.  It's so simple that when you look at code it's not so complex that it will scare you off, and easy enough to just start hacking around (even the good old:- <br>
10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD" <br>
20 GOTO 10<br>
is quite valuable).
<br> <br>
That said, it's not really worth while learning all the ins and outs of the language as anything real world (even *shudder* Visual Basic) will be quite different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's what I started on , and learning the fundementals such as if/else , do/while , variables , arrays , etc will give you a massive head start on any programming course in the future .
It 's so simple that when you look at code it 's not so complex that it will scare you off , and easy enough to just start hacking around ( even the good old : - 10 PRINT " HELLO WORLD " 20 GOTO 10 is quite valuable ) .
That said , it 's not really worth while learning all the ins and outs of the language as anything real world ( even * shudder * Visual Basic ) will be quite different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's what I started on, and learning the fundementals such as if/else, do/while, variables, arrays, etc will give you a massive head start on any programming course in the future.
It's so simple that when you look at code it's not so complex that it will scare you off, and easy enough to just start hacking around (even the good old:- 
10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD" 
20 GOTO 10
is quite valuable).
That said, it's not really worth while learning all the ins and outs of the language as anything real world (even *shudder* Visual Basic) will be quite different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427678</id>
	<title>Re:Funny argument</title>
	<author>chelberg</author>
	<datestamp>1268243400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I started programming in HP Basic around 1974.  Line numbers, gosub, the whole bit.  I taught myself how to program from the tutorial programs included with the language. TUT01,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>As I learned how to program I learned what not to do if you want to maintain your code.  I learned how to program in blocks, subroutines, etc. virtually while still using BASIC as the tool.  If you didn't learn how to be systematic in your coding, you would never be able to build large programs in BASIC.  By large programs I mean 1000's to 10's of thousands of lines of code.  (I wrote two large programs during this time in BASIC, a chess program and a FORTRAN emulator to do arbitrary precision arithmetic, which I wrote to be able to solve diff eq's to do solar system modeling among other things).</p><p>If I had written spaghetti code I never would've been able to debug these monsters.  If you are a good programmer you build your own style and mechanisms to manage the complexity.  When I went to college, I learned PASCAL, and then I ported my chess program to it in just a few weeks.  I loved the structure, but also felt it straightjacketed me with some of its limitations.</p><p>Now, my favorite language is LISP, but I program more in C++ as it is the language most of the students I work with know.  Over the years I've programmed in more languages than I can recall.</p><p>In looking at all the languages, each has its uses.  Knowing many languages lets you think in more metaphors, and styles, so you can choose the best one for the problem you encounter.  You can program horribly in any language, and you can code elegantly in any language.  Learning how to think about how to solve problems logically, efficiently, and elegantly is the key to being a good programmer, not the particular language you are currently  using.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I started programming in HP Basic around 1974 .
Line numbers , gosub , the whole bit .
I taught myself how to program from the tutorial programs included with the language .
TUT01 , ....As I learned how to program I learned what not to do if you want to maintain your code .
I learned how to program in blocks , subroutines , etc .
virtually while still using BASIC as the tool .
If you did n't learn how to be systematic in your coding , you would never be able to build large programs in BASIC .
By large programs I mean 1000 's to 10 's of thousands of lines of code .
( I wrote two large programs during this time in BASIC , a chess program and a FORTRAN emulator to do arbitrary precision arithmetic , which I wrote to be able to solve diff eq 's to do solar system modeling among other things ) .If I had written spaghetti code I never would 've been able to debug these monsters .
If you are a good programmer you build your own style and mechanisms to manage the complexity .
When I went to college , I learned PASCAL , and then I ported my chess program to it in just a few weeks .
I loved the structure , but also felt it straightjacketed me with some of its limitations.Now , my favorite language is LISP , but I program more in C + + as it is the language most of the students I work with know .
Over the years I 've programmed in more languages than I can recall.In looking at all the languages , each has its uses .
Knowing many languages lets you think in more metaphors , and styles , so you can choose the best one for the problem you encounter .
You can program horribly in any language , and you can code elegantly in any language .
Learning how to think about how to solve problems logically , efficiently , and elegantly is the key to being a good programmer , not the particular language you are currently using .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I started programming in HP Basic around 1974.
Line numbers, gosub, the whole bit.
I taught myself how to program from the tutorial programs included with the language.
TUT01, ....As I learned how to program I learned what not to do if you want to maintain your code.
I learned how to program in blocks, subroutines, etc.
virtually while still using BASIC as the tool.
If you didn't learn how to be systematic in your coding, you would never be able to build large programs in BASIC.
By large programs I mean 1000's to 10's of thousands of lines of code.
(I wrote two large programs during this time in BASIC, a chess program and a FORTRAN emulator to do arbitrary precision arithmetic, which I wrote to be able to solve diff eq's to do solar system modeling among other things).If I had written spaghetti code I never would've been able to debug these monsters.
If you are a good programmer you build your own style and mechanisms to manage the complexity.
When I went to college, I learned PASCAL, and then I ported my chess program to it in just a few weeks.
I loved the structure, but also felt it straightjacketed me with some of its limitations.Now, my favorite language is LISP, but I program more in C++ as it is the language most of the students I work with know.
Over the years I've programmed in more languages than I can recall.In looking at all the languages, each has its uses.
Knowing many languages lets you think in more metaphors, and styles, so you can choose the best one for the problem you encounter.
You can program horribly in any language, and you can code elegantly in any language.
Learning how to think about how to solve problems logically, efficiently, and elegantly is the key to being a good programmer, not the particular language you are currently  using.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31433758</id>
	<title>Knuth's Programs were Horribly Unreadable</title>
	<author>billstewart</author>
	<datestamp>1268233980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>(I learned programming first with several flavors of BASIC in the early 70s (plus books about F0RTRAN and COBOL but no chance to use them, then learned Academically Much Better programming with PL/C (the Cornell PL/I compiler, similar to IBM Checkout), then algorithms with Knuth Spaghetti Code and Knuth MIX, then IBM and PDP assemblers, then a summer job with RPGII, then Simscript, then C, shell, lex/yacc, and many other languages.)</i> </p><p> <b>Knuth's books on programming were fundamental then, and still are - understanding what machines are doing, and how to think about that, and understanding how mathematics relates to algorithms and programs, and how to think about them, are fundamental to good Computer Science and good programming, and probably always will be.  But Knuth's actual programs that he used to teach them were inexcusably unreadable spaghetti code, and MIX was just appalling, </b>even given the goal of being machine-vendor-neutral.  It's especially frustrating, because when I first used Knuth's books it was at least in the context of a class with a professor walking us through the critical parts, while now when I want to use them as reference books I've got to wade through that sludge myself.   <b>The syntax and structure made it difficult to learn the semantics which are what was really valuable about Knuth's work, and they make them difficult to use as a reference book. </b> </p><p>Algol 60 came out around 1960, and widely used for programmers who wanted to share ideas with each other (e.g. CACM, the Communications of the ACM journal, was mostly in Algol 60, though sometimes it used Fortran) and Knuth was writing almost a decade later.  He could have done 95-99\% of his non-assembler programs using Algol and Algol-like pseudocode, and it would have been much easier to read because you could tell when he was doing a FOR loop as opposed to looking for the incrementation and backward-pointing GOTOs, and when he did want to do things that were tricky it would have been easy to figure out which were the tricky parts.  (Lisp was also available around 1961, and for some things Knuth taught it would have been better, but for many things a procedural language is really enough closer to the metal than a functional language that it wasn't always appropriate.)</p><p>And MIX?  Ugly not-very-machine-like assembler, with decimal numbers and odd-sized words?  It's a hopeless thing to use to teach algorithms, except for algorithms that are really about bashing the bits when you need to do that.  And yes, the world wasn't as clean or pretty back in the 1960s, and there really were Burroughs machines that were almost that ugly, but still, it wasn't the best choice then and looks even worse now.  If I were writing something back then I hope I'd have used something cleaner, though the PDP-8 and IBM 360 didn't come out til the mid-60s, and byte sizes didn't really standardize for a while, even though people pretty much knew that binary sizes made things much cleaner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( I learned programming first with several flavors of BASIC in the early 70s ( plus books about F0RTRAN and COBOL but no chance to use them , then learned Academically Much Better programming with PL/C ( the Cornell PL/I compiler , similar to IBM Checkout ) , then algorithms with Knuth Spaghetti Code and Knuth MIX , then IBM and PDP assemblers , then a summer job with RPGII , then Simscript , then C , shell , lex/yacc , and many other languages .
) Knuth 's books on programming were fundamental then , and still are - understanding what machines are doing , and how to think about that , and understanding how mathematics relates to algorithms and programs , and how to think about them , are fundamental to good Computer Science and good programming , and probably always will be .
But Knuth 's actual programs that he used to teach them were inexcusably unreadable spaghetti code , and MIX was just appalling , even given the goal of being machine-vendor-neutral .
It 's especially frustrating , because when I first used Knuth 's books it was at least in the context of a class with a professor walking us through the critical parts , while now when I want to use them as reference books I 've got to wade through that sludge myself .
The syntax and structure made it difficult to learn the semantics which are what was really valuable about Knuth 's work , and they make them difficult to use as a reference book .
Algol 60 came out around 1960 , and widely used for programmers who wanted to share ideas with each other ( e.g .
CACM , the Communications of the ACM journal , was mostly in Algol 60 , though sometimes it used Fortran ) and Knuth was writing almost a decade later .
He could have done 95-99 \ % of his non-assembler programs using Algol and Algol-like pseudocode , and it would have been much easier to read because you could tell when he was doing a FOR loop as opposed to looking for the incrementation and backward-pointing GOTOs , and when he did want to do things that were tricky it would have been easy to figure out which were the tricky parts .
( Lisp was also available around 1961 , and for some things Knuth taught it would have been better , but for many things a procedural language is really enough closer to the metal than a functional language that it was n't always appropriate .
) And MIX ?
Ugly not-very-machine-like assembler , with decimal numbers and odd-sized words ?
It 's a hopeless thing to use to teach algorithms , except for algorithms that are really about bashing the bits when you need to do that .
And yes , the world was n't as clean or pretty back in the 1960s , and there really were Burroughs machines that were almost that ugly , but still , it was n't the best choice then and looks even worse now .
If I were writing something back then I hope I 'd have used something cleaner , though the PDP-8 and IBM 360 did n't come out til the mid-60s , and byte sizes did n't really standardize for a while , even though people pretty much knew that binary sizes made things much cleaner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(I learned programming first with several flavors of BASIC in the early 70s (plus books about F0RTRAN and COBOL but no chance to use them, then learned Academically Much Better programming with PL/C (the Cornell PL/I compiler, similar to IBM Checkout), then algorithms with Knuth Spaghetti Code and Knuth MIX, then IBM and PDP assemblers, then a summer job with RPGII, then Simscript, then C, shell, lex/yacc, and many other languages.
)  Knuth's books on programming were fundamental then, and still are - understanding what machines are doing, and how to think about that, and understanding how mathematics relates to algorithms and programs, and how to think about them, are fundamental to good Computer Science and good programming, and probably always will be.
But Knuth's actual programs that he used to teach them were inexcusably unreadable spaghetti code, and MIX was just appalling, even given the goal of being machine-vendor-neutral.
It's especially frustrating, because when I first used Knuth's books it was at least in the context of a class with a professor walking us through the critical parts, while now when I want to use them as reference books I've got to wade through that sludge myself.
The syntax and structure made it difficult to learn the semantics which are what was really valuable about Knuth's work, and they make them difficult to use as a reference book.
Algol 60 came out around 1960, and widely used for programmers who wanted to share ideas with each other (e.g.
CACM, the Communications of the ACM journal, was mostly in Algol 60, though sometimes it used Fortran) and Knuth was writing almost a decade later.
He could have done 95-99\% of his non-assembler programs using Algol and Algol-like pseudocode, and it would have been much easier to read because you could tell when he was doing a FOR loop as opposed to looking for the incrementation and backward-pointing GOTOs, and when he did want to do things that were tricky it would have been easy to figure out which were the tricky parts.
(Lisp was also available around 1961, and for some things Knuth taught it would have been better, but for many things a procedural language is really enough closer to the metal than a functional language that it wasn't always appropriate.
)And MIX?
Ugly not-very-machine-like assembler, with decimal numbers and odd-sized words?
It's a hopeless thing to use to teach algorithms, except for algorithms that are really about bashing the bits when you need to do that.
And yes, the world wasn't as clean or pretty back in the 1960s, and there really were Burroughs machines that were almost that ugly, but still, it wasn't the best choice then and looks even worse now.
If I were writing something back then I hope I'd have used something cleaner, though the PDP-8 and IBM 360 didn't come out til the mid-60s, and byte sizes didn't really standardize for a while, even though people pretty much knew that binary sizes made things much cleaner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424012</id>
	<title>Re:It's not the language, it's the teacher</title>
	<author>urusan</author>
	<datestamp>1268213940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A good teacher is extremely valuable and it certainly makes the process a lot easier.</p><p>However, the teacher is less important than the student in determining the quality of their education. Compared to books, a teacher adds expert interactivity to the learning experience which is nice but not essential. A good teacher can also improve the quality of their students by sparking interest in them, but it's ultimately up to the students to learn.</p><p>Additionally, being able to teach yourself effectively is a crucial skill for a programmer. You can't rely on teachers to always be there, and sometimes you just have to sit down and learn something from a book (or even worse without one).</p><p>I've learned many of my most valuable lessons from books and from my successes and failures. Books in particular are the key to effective self-teaching of an established skill. They contain much of the wisdom that a teacher would impart upon you, and are often written by the top experts on the subject instead of whoever is available to teach the equivalent class. Of course, book learning by itself is a very poor way to attain a skill. A self-taught student must combine what was learned from the book with experience doing it themselves. The trials of experience are the exams of the self-taught. One more ingredient to add in when possible is to find a guru that one can go to for help. They fill the same role as the teacher, but without the formalities or the regular class times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A good teacher is extremely valuable and it certainly makes the process a lot easier.However , the teacher is less important than the student in determining the quality of their education .
Compared to books , a teacher adds expert interactivity to the learning experience which is nice but not essential .
A good teacher can also improve the quality of their students by sparking interest in them , but it 's ultimately up to the students to learn.Additionally , being able to teach yourself effectively is a crucial skill for a programmer .
You ca n't rely on teachers to always be there , and sometimes you just have to sit down and learn something from a book ( or even worse without one ) .I 've learned many of my most valuable lessons from books and from my successes and failures .
Books in particular are the key to effective self-teaching of an established skill .
They contain much of the wisdom that a teacher would impart upon you , and are often written by the top experts on the subject instead of whoever is available to teach the equivalent class .
Of course , book learning by itself is a very poor way to attain a skill .
A self-taught student must combine what was learned from the book with experience doing it themselves .
The trials of experience are the exams of the self-taught .
One more ingredient to add in when possible is to find a guru that one can go to for help .
They fill the same role as the teacher , but without the formalities or the regular class times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good teacher is extremely valuable and it certainly makes the process a lot easier.However, the teacher is less important than the student in determining the quality of their education.
Compared to books, a teacher adds expert interactivity to the learning experience which is nice but not essential.
A good teacher can also improve the quality of their students by sparking interest in them, but it's ultimately up to the students to learn.Additionally, being able to teach yourself effectively is a crucial skill for a programmer.
You can't rely on teachers to always be there, and sometimes you just have to sit down and learn something from a book (or even worse without one).I've learned many of my most valuable lessons from books and from my successes and failures.
Books in particular are the key to effective self-teaching of an established skill.
They contain much of the wisdom that a teacher would impart upon you, and are often written by the top experts on the subject instead of whoever is available to teach the equivalent class.
Of course, book learning by itself is a very poor way to attain a skill.
A self-taught student must combine what was learned from the book with experience doing it themselves.
The trials of experience are the exams of the self-taught.
One more ingredient to add in when possible is to find a guru that one can go to for help.
They fill the same role as the teacher, but without the formalities or the regular class times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428350</id>
	<title>Re:Funny argument</title>
	<author>c++0xFF</author>
	<datestamp>1268246700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The irony is that QBasic is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QBasic" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">structured</a> [wikipedia.org], but nobody seemed to know how to use it.  I had that problem -- I was so used to GOTO that the concept of functions seemed strange.</p><p>I got over that problem as soon as I learned C.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The irony is that QBasic is structured [ wikipedia.org ] , but nobody seemed to know how to use it .
I had that problem -- I was so used to GOTO that the concept of functions seemed strange.I got over that problem as soon as I learned C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The irony is that QBasic is structured [wikipedia.org], but nobody seemed to know how to use it.
I had that problem -- I was so used to GOTO that the concept of functions seemed strange.I got over that problem as soon as I learned C.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423968</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is great for kids</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268213220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I stick with the old adage a bad workman blames his tools.</p></div></blockquote><p>Argh. Pardon the fork, but it's a poor adage. What it's meant to teach about attitude is lost upon the intended target, the beginner, because the simple mindset misinterprets it to mean that skill always triumphs over bad tools; that there are no bad tools. It causes more confusion than clarity.</p><p>Sorry, but after half a lifetime of using and selling tools, I just twitch when I hear that one trotted out. I agree with you on BASIC.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I stick with the old adage a bad workman blames his tools.Argh .
Pardon the fork , but it 's a poor adage .
What it 's meant to teach about attitude is lost upon the intended target , the beginner , because the simple mindset misinterprets it to mean that skill always triumphs over bad tools ; that there are no bad tools .
It causes more confusion than clarity.Sorry , but after half a lifetime of using and selling tools , I just twitch when I hear that one trotted out .
I agree with you on BASIC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stick with the old adage a bad workman blames his tools.Argh.
Pardon the fork, but it's a poor adage.
What it's meant to teach about attitude is lost upon the intended target, the beginner, because the simple mindset misinterprets it to mean that skill always triumphs over bad tools; that there are no bad tools.
It causes more confusion than clarity.Sorry, but after half a lifetime of using and selling tools, I just twitch when I hear that one trotted out.
I agree with you on BASIC.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31440358</id>
	<title>Python, Haskel and yes Pascal</title>
	<author>niftymitch</author>
	<datestamp>1268332260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>BASIC is clearly a left turn.
<p>
Better to teach a structured OO language
like Python, Haskel and yes Pascal.  Java
is too hard to get started for the beginner.
</p><p>
One of the historic features of Pascal was
that if it would compile it would almost
be guaranteed to run (almost).  There is a
lesson in this as it removes a lot of tedium
from the teacher.
</p><p>
Clever languages that are too plastic
are too hard for teachers to learn, teach and
grade.
</p><p>
The key is the teacher and secondary is the cost
but in an Open source world languages like Python,
Ruby, Haskel, cost is nill.   Teaching the teachers is much harder and more challenging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BASIC is clearly a left turn .
Better to teach a structured OO language like Python , Haskel and yes Pascal .
Java is too hard to get started for the beginner .
One of the historic features of Pascal was that if it would compile it would almost be guaranteed to run ( almost ) .
There is a lesson in this as it removes a lot of tedium from the teacher .
Clever languages that are too plastic are too hard for teachers to learn , teach and grade .
The key is the teacher and secondary is the cost but in an Open source world languages like Python , Ruby , Haskel , cost is nill .
Teaching the teachers is much harder and more challenging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BASIC is clearly a left turn.
Better to teach a structured OO language
like Python, Haskel and yes Pascal.
Java
is too hard to get started for the beginner.
One of the historic features of Pascal was
that if it would compile it would almost
be guaranteed to run (almost).
There is a
lesson in this as it removes a lot of tedium
from the teacher.
Clever languages that are too plastic
are too hard for teachers to learn, teach and
grade.
The key is the teacher and secondary is the cost
but in an Open source world languages like Python,
Ruby, Haskel, cost is nill.
Teaching the teachers is much harder and more challenging.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424118</id>
	<title>GIGO not GOTO</title>
	<author>SteveAstro</author>
	<datestamp>1268215440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Admittedly, it may take some  application, but you can write crap in any programming language, and you can write structured BASIC programs. You need to have been introduced to the technique that's all.</p><p>There seem to be VERY few assembly language programmers here pointing out that underpinning ALL our oh-so-elegant programming languages is one of JMP $ LCALL and RET.</p><p>Steve</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Admittedly , it may take some application , but you can write crap in any programming language , and you can write structured BASIC programs .
You need to have been introduced to the technique that 's all.There seem to be VERY few assembly language programmers here pointing out that underpinning ALL our oh-so-elegant programming languages is one of JMP $ LCALL and RET.Steve</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Admittedly, it may take some  application, but you can write crap in any programming language, and you can write structured BASIC programs.
You need to have been introduced to the technique that's all.There seem to be VERY few assembly language programmers here pointing out that underpinning ALL our oh-so-elegant programming languages is one of JMP $ LCALL and RET.Steve</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427332</id>
	<title>Re:Better than nothing</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1268241660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``Sure, if you have a full Linux environment with gcc, man pages, and web access then BASIC is just some lame toy, but if it's all you have It's a start.''</p><p>Yes.</p><p>And, frankly, I would rather not teach someone their first programming steps using C on Linux. For a first language, I want them to have to learn as few concepts as possible before they can do something. Include files, the whole boilerplate for main, pointers, and the edit-compile-test cycle are just too much. I want them to be able to type in a single line and have it work.</p><p>At the next step up, I think I would prefer a language without too much magic happening behind the scenes. Automatic memory management is wonderful, but I want my hypothetical programming students to realize that everything has a cost, and objects don't just come out of nowhere and go away when you don't need them anymore. The same applies to a lot of other things, even function calls and the humble "i = i + 1".</p><p>Considering the above two things, it looks like my students would learn at least one reasonably high-level, but, more importantly, interactive language, and at least some sort of assembly language. The first, to get into programming at all, and the second to really understand what is happening inside the computer.</p><p>After that, it would be the bread and butter of programming: abstractions, abstractions, abstractions. Unless you are unfortunate enough to code for an assembler with no macro support, or a language like the original COBOL, you will write your program by taking what the language gives you and using it to create abstractions that fit the problem you are solving. This is where you create your functions, your macros, your data structures, your objects, your rules, and any other abstraction you may need so that the tools you have fit the problem space. In the process, you will come across the various programming paradigms: structured programming, object-oriented programming, functional programming, declarative programming, etc. I think this should ideally be done using a language in which all the concepts can be expressed. Unfortunately, few languages can do this well.</p><p>Once you reach this stage, you know a lot of things that will come in useful in programming in general, but there is still a lot left to learn. You will need to learn the specifics and the libraries of the languages you will be using. For example, if you are going to program in C, you will need to understand pointers and dereferencing. You will need to learn common pitfalls and how to avoid them. Concurrency should be a big item here. You will have to learn how to write maintainable code. You will have to learn about efficiency - how to write efficient code, but, more importantly, how to spend your time efficiently.</p><p>And that's just for programming. To be a good programmer, you will also have to learn related disciplines, such as design, documentation, communication, and version control.</p><p>But the first step is that first program. Nobody will ever succeed in climbing the mountain without taking the first step. And if we want people to climb the mountain, that first step had better be easy.</p><p>In my opinion, the old BASICs, with line numbers and gotos, aren't half bad for the first step. They are easy to get started with and yet pretty close to the fundamentals of your computer. I would be interested in hearing better suggestions, though. Especially since they may help avoid the risk of people who never made it past the first step writing serious projects in BASIC...</p><p>As for me, I started with IBM BASIC (first step), then did x86 assembly (fundamentals), then C (because people told me that's what real programmers use) and PHP because I had to use it at work, then Java (because the propaganda convinced me that it was the Messiah among programming languages), and then I realized I shouldn't just listen to other people, but also do my own research and draw my own conclusions. Since then, I have learned many programming languages just to learn about the concepts i</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` Sure , if you have a full Linux environment with gcc , man pages , and web access then BASIC is just some lame toy , but if it 's all you have It 's a start .
''Yes.And , frankly , I would rather not teach someone their first programming steps using C on Linux .
For a first language , I want them to have to learn as few concepts as possible before they can do something .
Include files , the whole boilerplate for main , pointers , and the edit-compile-test cycle are just too much .
I want them to be able to type in a single line and have it work.At the next step up , I think I would prefer a language without too much magic happening behind the scenes .
Automatic memory management is wonderful , but I want my hypothetical programming students to realize that everything has a cost , and objects do n't just come out of nowhere and go away when you do n't need them anymore .
The same applies to a lot of other things , even function calls and the humble " i = i + 1 " .Considering the above two things , it looks like my students would learn at least one reasonably high-level , but , more importantly , interactive language , and at least some sort of assembly language .
The first , to get into programming at all , and the second to really understand what is happening inside the computer.After that , it would be the bread and butter of programming : abstractions , abstractions , abstractions .
Unless you are unfortunate enough to code for an assembler with no macro support , or a language like the original COBOL , you will write your program by taking what the language gives you and using it to create abstractions that fit the problem you are solving .
This is where you create your functions , your macros , your data structures , your objects , your rules , and any other abstraction you may need so that the tools you have fit the problem space .
In the process , you will come across the various programming paradigms : structured programming , object-oriented programming , functional programming , declarative programming , etc .
I think this should ideally be done using a language in which all the concepts can be expressed .
Unfortunately , few languages can do this well.Once you reach this stage , you know a lot of things that will come in useful in programming in general , but there is still a lot left to learn .
You will need to learn the specifics and the libraries of the languages you will be using .
For example , if you are going to program in C , you will need to understand pointers and dereferencing .
You will need to learn common pitfalls and how to avoid them .
Concurrency should be a big item here .
You will have to learn how to write maintainable code .
You will have to learn about efficiency - how to write efficient code , but , more importantly , how to spend your time efficiently.And that 's just for programming .
To be a good programmer , you will also have to learn related disciplines , such as design , documentation , communication , and version control.But the first step is that first program .
Nobody will ever succeed in climbing the mountain without taking the first step .
And if we want people to climb the mountain , that first step had better be easy.In my opinion , the old BASICs , with line numbers and gotos , are n't half bad for the first step .
They are easy to get started with and yet pretty close to the fundamentals of your computer .
I would be interested in hearing better suggestions , though .
Especially since they may help avoid the risk of people who never made it past the first step writing serious projects in BASIC...As for me , I started with IBM BASIC ( first step ) , then did x86 assembly ( fundamentals ) , then C ( because people told me that 's what real programmers use ) and PHP because I had to use it at work , then Java ( because the propaganda convinced me that it was the Messiah among programming languages ) , and then I realized I should n't just listen to other people , but also do my own research and draw my own conclusions .
Since then , I have learned many programming languages just to learn about the concepts i</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``Sure, if you have a full Linux environment with gcc, man pages, and web access then BASIC is just some lame toy, but if it's all you have It's a start.
''Yes.And, frankly, I would rather not teach someone their first programming steps using C on Linux.
For a first language, I want them to have to learn as few concepts as possible before they can do something.
Include files, the whole boilerplate for main, pointers, and the edit-compile-test cycle are just too much.
I want them to be able to type in a single line and have it work.At the next step up, I think I would prefer a language without too much magic happening behind the scenes.
Automatic memory management is wonderful, but I want my hypothetical programming students to realize that everything has a cost, and objects don't just come out of nowhere and go away when you don't need them anymore.
The same applies to a lot of other things, even function calls and the humble "i = i + 1".Considering the above two things, it looks like my students would learn at least one reasonably high-level, but, more importantly, interactive language, and at least some sort of assembly language.
The first, to get into programming at all, and the second to really understand what is happening inside the computer.After that, it would be the bread and butter of programming: abstractions, abstractions, abstractions.
Unless you are unfortunate enough to code for an assembler with no macro support, or a language like the original COBOL, you will write your program by taking what the language gives you and using it to create abstractions that fit the problem you are solving.
This is where you create your functions, your macros, your data structures, your objects, your rules, and any other abstraction you may need so that the tools you have fit the problem space.
In the process, you will come across the various programming paradigms: structured programming, object-oriented programming, functional programming, declarative programming, etc.
I think this should ideally be done using a language in which all the concepts can be expressed.
Unfortunately, few languages can do this well.Once you reach this stage, you know a lot of things that will come in useful in programming in general, but there is still a lot left to learn.
You will need to learn the specifics and the libraries of the languages you will be using.
For example, if you are going to program in C, you will need to understand pointers and dereferencing.
You will need to learn common pitfalls and how to avoid them.
Concurrency should be a big item here.
You will have to learn how to write maintainable code.
You will have to learn about efficiency - how to write efficient code, but, more importantly, how to spend your time efficiently.And that's just for programming.
To be a good programmer, you will also have to learn related disciplines, such as design, documentation, communication, and version control.But the first step is that first program.
Nobody will ever succeed in climbing the mountain without taking the first step.
And if we want people to climb the mountain, that first step had better be easy.In my opinion, the old BASICs, with line numbers and gotos, aren't half bad for the first step.
They are easy to get started with and yet pretty close to the fundamentals of your computer.
I would be interested in hearing better suggestions, though.
Especially since they may help avoid the risk of people who never made it past the first step writing serious projects in BASIC...As for me, I started with IBM BASIC (first step), then did x86 assembly (fundamentals), then C (because people told me that's what real programmers use) and PHP because I had to use it at work, then Java (because the propaganda convinced me that it was the Messiah among programming languages), and then I realized I shouldn't just listen to other people, but also do my own research and draw my own conclusions.
Since then, I have learned many programming languages just to learn about the concepts i</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427166</id>
	<title>ZBasic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268241000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I kind of miss <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZBasic" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">ZBasic</a> [wikipedia.org]. Small, fast and with an expert friendly editor. (This was before I knew about the VI/VIM editors.)<br>The entire compiler/interpretor was a ~60k MS-DOS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com executable, including a full screen editor.<br>I still have version 4.6 somewhere.</p><p>Apparently also available on CP/M, Apple ][, Macintosh and TRS-80.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I kind of miss ZBasic [ wikipedia.org ] .
Small , fast and with an expert friendly editor .
( This was before I knew about the VI/VIM editors .
) The entire compiler/interpretor was a ~ 60k MS-DOS .com executable , including a full screen editor.I still have version 4.6 somewhere.Apparently also available on CP/M , Apple ] [ , Macintosh and TRS-80 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I kind of miss ZBasic [wikipedia.org].
Small, fast and with an expert friendly editor.
(This was before I knew about the VI/VIM editors.
)The entire compiler/interpretor was a ~60k MS-DOS .com executable, including a full screen editor.I still have version 4.6 somewhere.Apparently also available on CP/M, Apple ][, Macintosh and TRS-80.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31432264</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is irrelevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268222100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My highschool had a mandatory, though only 1-term long class on introduction to computers and what we mainly did was learn about the various parts and were introduced to BASIC. This was in early 80's and we used Commodore PETs. I was 12.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My highschool had a mandatory , though only 1-term long class on introduction to computers and what we mainly did was learn about the various parts and were introduced to BASIC .
This was in early 80 's and we used Commodore PETs .
I was 12 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My highschool had a mandatory, though only 1-term long class on introduction to computers and what we mainly did was learn about the various parts and were introduced to BASIC.
This was in early 80's and we used Commodore PETs.
I was 12.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644</id>
	<title>BASIC is irrelevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268252580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a bunch of horseshit. Most modern intro-to-programming classes are taught in C and/or C++.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a bunch of horseshit .
Most modern intro-to-programming classes are taught in C and/or C + + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a bunch of horseshit.
Most modern intro-to-programming classes are taught in C and/or C++.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424276</id>
	<title>Re:I started with BASIC</title>
	<author>skiman1979</author>
	<datestamp>1268217720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If nothing else, THAT is the key to what makes BASIC so good as an intro language.  With only a few simple lines of code, you can have a full program up and running getting input from the user and displaying things on the screen.  I first got interested in programming as a kid because I thought it was awesome that I could write some text on the screen to make the computer do what I wanted it to do.</p><p>You get to learn about core programming concepts like loops, if/else statements, and the like without worrying about classes, structs, event handling, threads, and other similar things that although are helpful, are not necessary to create a program.  Some languages (besides BASIC) don't even have some of those more advanced components.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If nothing else , THAT is the key to what makes BASIC so good as an intro language .
With only a few simple lines of code , you can have a full program up and running getting input from the user and displaying things on the screen .
I first got interested in programming as a kid because I thought it was awesome that I could write some text on the screen to make the computer do what I wanted it to do.You get to learn about core programming concepts like loops , if/else statements , and the like without worrying about classes , structs , event handling , threads , and other similar things that although are helpful , are not necessary to create a program .
Some languages ( besides BASIC ) do n't even have some of those more advanced components .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If nothing else, THAT is the key to what makes BASIC so good as an intro language.
With only a few simple lines of code, you can have a full program up and running getting input from the user and displaying things on the screen.
I first got interested in programming as a kid because I thought it was awesome that I could write some text on the screen to make the computer do what I wanted it to do.You get to learn about core programming concepts like loops, if/else statements, and the like without worrying about classes, structs, event handling, threads, and other similar things that although are helpful, are not necessary to create a program.
Some languages (besides BASIC) don't even have some of those more advanced components.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424716</id>
	<title>we need BASIC, or something similar</title>
	<author>nerdyalien</author>
	<datestamp>1268225400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My first computer language is BASIC too.</p><p>Obviously, it can't do anything fantastic. But it can invigorate the enthusiasm of the casual coder to do more coding. That's the best trait in my opinion.</p><p>I mean, I don't think a first time coder wants to write an OS kernel. Maybe he/she wants to print his/her name on the screen, see computer knows the answer from 2+2, draw a geometrical shape on the screen... simple things that makes them happy.</p><p>Once they are done with simple stuff, they might level up to experiment with algorithm type tasks, e.g. routines to generate Fibonacci numbers, prime numbers etc.</p><p>Certainly, nothing I picked up in BASIC helped me in anyway on any language I tried later. But at least, when I walked into CS101, I wasn't someone totally new to the concept of 'programming' and wasn't scared at all. What I see is, people who never had programming experience before college years, tend to develop a real hatred towards it in their freshmen year.</p><p>Somebody above mentioned JAVA (or any OOP language) is a bad idea for new programmers. I totally agree with that. Even my CS101 taught JAVA, it wasn't a pretty experience. May be I am strange person, I never liked Visual Basic either.</p><p>But in my 2nd year, I learnt C.. it is to-date, the best damn thing I learned in my life. It pave the way for me to learn C++, MATLAB, C#.</p><p>In my opinion, programming is not something one can teach to a great depth. Its something one needs to explore with his/her inner curiosity. BASIC can spark that inner interest. BASIC gives some hope for a newbie casual programmer, rather totally putting off like most advanced languages does (even C/C++). That's what matters at the end of the day.</p><p>I saw M$ is rolling out 'Small Basic' as an replacement for original BASIC (in many plaforms including linux). I never had the chance to try it out, but I see some important additions that helps coder to play with GUI, internet so on. I am glad to see someone is putting effort to bring the programming back down to absolute ground level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My first computer language is BASIC too.Obviously , it ca n't do anything fantastic .
But it can invigorate the enthusiasm of the casual coder to do more coding .
That 's the best trait in my opinion.I mean , I do n't think a first time coder wants to write an OS kernel .
Maybe he/she wants to print his/her name on the screen , see computer knows the answer from 2 + 2 , draw a geometrical shape on the screen... simple things that makes them happy.Once they are done with simple stuff , they might level up to experiment with algorithm type tasks , e.g .
routines to generate Fibonacci numbers , prime numbers etc.Certainly , nothing I picked up in BASIC helped me in anyway on any language I tried later .
But at least , when I walked into CS101 , I was n't someone totally new to the concept of 'programming ' and was n't scared at all .
What I see is , people who never had programming experience before college years , tend to develop a real hatred towards it in their freshmen year.Somebody above mentioned JAVA ( or any OOP language ) is a bad idea for new programmers .
I totally agree with that .
Even my CS101 taught JAVA , it was n't a pretty experience .
May be I am strange person , I never liked Visual Basic either.But in my 2nd year , I learnt C.. it is to-date , the best damn thing I learned in my life .
It pave the way for me to learn C + + , MATLAB , C # .In my opinion , programming is not something one can teach to a great depth .
Its something one needs to explore with his/her inner curiosity .
BASIC can spark that inner interest .
BASIC gives some hope for a newbie casual programmer , rather totally putting off like most advanced languages does ( even C/C + + ) .
That 's what matters at the end of the day.I saw M $ is rolling out 'Small Basic ' as an replacement for original BASIC ( in many plaforms including linux ) .
I never had the chance to try it out , but I see some important additions that helps coder to play with GUI , internet so on .
I am glad to see someone is putting effort to bring the programming back down to absolute ground level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first computer language is BASIC too.Obviously, it can't do anything fantastic.
But it can invigorate the enthusiasm of the casual coder to do more coding.
That's the best trait in my opinion.I mean, I don't think a first time coder wants to write an OS kernel.
Maybe he/she wants to print his/her name on the screen, see computer knows the answer from 2+2, draw a geometrical shape on the screen... simple things that makes them happy.Once they are done with simple stuff, they might level up to experiment with algorithm type tasks, e.g.
routines to generate Fibonacci numbers, prime numbers etc.Certainly, nothing I picked up in BASIC helped me in anyway on any language I tried later.
But at least, when I walked into CS101, I wasn't someone totally new to the concept of 'programming' and wasn't scared at all.
What I see is, people who never had programming experience before college years, tend to develop a real hatred towards it in their freshmen year.Somebody above mentioned JAVA (or any OOP language) is a bad idea for new programmers.
I totally agree with that.
Even my CS101 taught JAVA, it wasn't a pretty experience.
May be I am strange person, I never liked Visual Basic either.But in my 2nd year, I learnt C.. it is to-date, the best damn thing I learned in my life.
It pave the way for me to learn C++, MATLAB, C#.In my opinion, programming is not something one can teach to a great depth.
Its something one needs to explore with his/her inner curiosity.
BASIC can spark that inner interest.
BASIC gives some hope for a newbie casual programmer, rather totally putting off like most advanced languages does (even C/C++).
That's what matters at the end of the day.I saw M$ is rolling out 'Small Basic' as an replacement for original BASIC (in many plaforms including linux).
I never had the chance to try it out, but I see some important additions that helps coder to play with GUI, internet so on.
I am glad to see someone is putting effort to bring the programming back down to absolute ground level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425276</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is irrelevant</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1268232180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my case, it was trying to explain to my father why I felt my game was more important than that silly quicken folder.  That wasn't a game.  We only had 40MB to deal with and that was getting in the way of what makes a computer good.  Eventually I found QBASIC and GWBASIC on there and it was all I needed to make this machine do what I wanted!  I had previously learned on a TRS-80 by copying code out of a magazine and editing it here and there.  The new computer didn't seem to have the same interface, so I figured I was at a loss and this machine could only deal with machine code.  It wasn't cool enough to have a prompt that you could just start programming in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my case , it was trying to explain to my father why I felt my game was more important than that silly quicken folder .
That was n't a game .
We only had 40MB to deal with and that was getting in the way of what makes a computer good .
Eventually I found QBASIC and GWBASIC on there and it was all I needed to make this machine do what I wanted !
I had previously learned on a TRS-80 by copying code out of a magazine and editing it here and there .
The new computer did n't seem to have the same interface , so I figured I was at a loss and this machine could only deal with machine code .
It was n't cool enough to have a prompt that you could just start programming in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my case, it was trying to explain to my father why I felt my game was more important than that silly quicken folder.
That wasn't a game.
We only had 40MB to deal with and that was getting in the way of what makes a computer good.
Eventually I found QBASIC and GWBASIC on there and it was all I needed to make this machine do what I wanted!
I had previously learned on a TRS-80 by copying code out of a magazine and editing it here and there.
The new computer didn't seem to have the same interface, so I figured I was at a loss and this machine could only deal with machine code.
It wasn't cool enough to have a prompt that you could just start programming in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424216</id>
	<title>Re:Funny argument</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1268216640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to wonder if my starting on TI-BASIC is what led me to be a subroutine fetishist.</p><p>If I see the same two lines of code repeated, I wrap it in a subroutines. I have way too many 2-3 line subs...</p><p>I is bad programmer.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to wonder if my starting on TI-BASIC is what led me to be a subroutine fetishist.If I see the same two lines of code repeated , I wrap it in a subroutines .
I have way too many 2-3 line subs...I is bad programmer .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to wonder if my starting on TI-BASIC is what led me to be a subroutine fetishist.If I see the same two lines of code repeated, I wrap it in a subroutines.
I have way too many 2-3 line subs...I is bad programmer.
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428890</id>
	<title>Re:Variety</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268249220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What I \_do\_ object against is stuff like Visual Basic. That's taking a limited language which is simple and jamming it into a place where it shouldn't belong.</p></div><p>To be honest, modern Visual Basic (VB.NET and beyond) is only "BASIC" in a sense that it uses a bunch of old keywords and basic constructs (such as DO..LOOP or FOR..NEXT). Semantically, though, it's almost exactly the same as C# (which is itself not that far from Java), and definitely not more complex.</p><p>I know a lot of people coming from BASIC background hate VB, but in truth, it's actually a fairly reasonable language to start learning<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET (or even OO in general) with. You get all the same constructs feature-wise, but with a syntax that is more verbose and descriptive, and a few extra checks turned on by default.</p><p>To give a specific example: in Java, you use keyword "final" to indicate that a class cannot be inherited, and also that a method cannot be overridden. In C#, you use "sealed" for the same purpose. But VB has two separate keywords, namely, "NotInheritable" and "NotOverridable" - which are lengthy, but their name tells exactly what they are.</p><p>Another keyword example: what is "abstract" in Java and C#, is "MustInherit" and "MustOverride" in VB - again, depending on whether it's applied to a class or to a method.</p><p>For syntax in general, compare Java/C# "List&lt;int&gt;" to VB "List(Of Integer)".</p><p>Extra checks can be handy, too. For example, in Java, "2000000000+2000000000" is going to silently overflow and become a large negative number. In C# the default is the same, though you can write "checked(...)" if you want to get an exception instead. In VB, arithmetic overflow checking is on by default, and you'll get OverflowException.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I \ _do \ _ object against is stuff like Visual Basic .
That 's taking a limited language which is simple and jamming it into a place where it should n't belong.To be honest , modern Visual Basic ( VB.NET and beyond ) is only " BASIC " in a sense that it uses a bunch of old keywords and basic constructs ( such as DO..LOOP or FOR..NEXT ) .
Semantically , though , it 's almost exactly the same as C # ( which is itself not that far from Java ) , and definitely not more complex.I know a lot of people coming from BASIC background hate VB , but in truth , it 's actually a fairly reasonable language to start learning .NET ( or even OO in general ) with .
You get all the same constructs feature-wise , but with a syntax that is more verbose and descriptive , and a few extra checks turned on by default.To give a specific example : in Java , you use keyword " final " to indicate that a class can not be inherited , and also that a method can not be overridden .
In C # , you use " sealed " for the same purpose .
But VB has two separate keywords , namely , " NotInheritable " and " NotOverridable " - which are lengthy , but their name tells exactly what they are.Another keyword example : what is " abstract " in Java and C # , is " MustInherit " and " MustOverride " in VB - again , depending on whether it 's applied to a class or to a method.For syntax in general , compare Java/C # " List " to VB " List ( Of Integer ) " .Extra checks can be handy , too .
For example , in Java , " 2000000000 + 2000000000 " is going to silently overflow and become a large negative number .
In C # the default is the same , though you can write " checked ( ... ) " if you want to get an exception instead .
In VB , arithmetic overflow checking is on by default , and you 'll get OverflowException .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I \_do\_ object against is stuff like Visual Basic.
That's taking a limited language which is simple and jamming it into a place where it shouldn't belong.To be honest, modern Visual Basic (VB.NET and beyond) is only "BASIC" in a sense that it uses a bunch of old keywords and basic constructs (such as DO..LOOP or FOR..NEXT).
Semantically, though, it's almost exactly the same as C# (which is itself not that far from Java), and definitely not more complex.I know a lot of people coming from BASIC background hate VB, but in truth, it's actually a fairly reasonable language to start learning .NET (or even OO in general) with.
You get all the same constructs feature-wise, but with a syntax that is more verbose and descriptive, and a few extra checks turned on by default.To give a specific example: in Java, you use keyword "final" to indicate that a class cannot be inherited, and also that a method cannot be overridden.
In C#, you use "sealed" for the same purpose.
But VB has two separate keywords, namely, "NotInheritable" and "NotOverridable" - which are lengthy, but their name tells exactly what they are.Another keyword example: what is "abstract" in Java and C#, is "MustInherit" and "MustOverride" in VB - again, depending on whether it's applied to a class or to a method.For syntax in general, compare Java/C# "List" to VB "List(Of Integer)".Extra checks can be handy, too.
For example, in Java, "2000000000+2000000000" is going to silently overflow and become a large negative number.
In C# the default is the same, though you can write "checked(...)" if you want to get an exception instead.
In VB, arithmetic overflow checking is on by default, and you'll get OverflowException.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423870</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is great for kids</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268212020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, those things could be better taught by primary school mathematics teachers.  Primary school maths <i>is supposed to be all about</i> patterns.  Examples: efficient methods of computing the sum of an arithmetic series; symmetry (etc.) of shapes;  identity elements for + and multiplication; basic logic arguments like p -&gt; q (not like that of course, but in real world terms).  All of this quite literally is child's play.</p><p>After that programming computers is nothing more than an application of those simple facts.  Did I mention QBASIC anywhere?</p><p>Granted, I had a similar experience to yours, playing with DOS with the said QBASIC and batch files and all the rest. That said, I think it is harmful to be introduced to programming too early before mathematics.  You know how to build a great program at a young age, but with no appreciation for the ideas for what they are.  You can go in one direction but not the other. If you think you can, you went the other way already.</p><p>The problem is having bad teachers. Luckily for me I didn't have many (but not 0) of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , those things could be better taught by primary school mathematics teachers .
Primary school maths is supposed to be all about patterns .
Examples : efficient methods of computing the sum of an arithmetic series ; symmetry ( etc .
) of shapes ; identity elements for + and multiplication ; basic logic arguments like p - &gt; q ( not like that of course , but in real world terms ) .
All of this quite literally is child 's play.After that programming computers is nothing more than an application of those simple facts .
Did I mention QBASIC anywhere ? Granted , I had a similar experience to yours , playing with DOS with the said QBASIC and batch files and all the rest .
That said , I think it is harmful to be introduced to programming too early before mathematics .
You know how to build a great program at a young age , but with no appreciation for the ideas for what they are .
You can go in one direction but not the other .
If you think you can , you went the other way already.The problem is having bad teachers .
Luckily for me I did n't have many ( but not 0 ) of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, those things could be better taught by primary school mathematics teachers.
Primary school maths is supposed to be all about patterns.
Examples: efficient methods of computing the sum of an arithmetic series; symmetry (etc.
) of shapes;  identity elements for + and multiplication; basic logic arguments like p -&gt; q (not like that of course, but in real world terms).
All of this quite literally is child's play.After that programming computers is nothing more than an application of those simple facts.
Did I mention QBASIC anywhere?Granted, I had a similar experience to yours, playing with DOS with the said QBASIC and batch files and all the rest.
That said, I think it is harmful to be introduced to programming too early before mathematics.
You know how to build a great program at a young age, but with no appreciation for the ideas for what they are.
You can go in one direction but not the other.
If you think you can, you went the other way already.The problem is having bad teachers.
Luckily for me I didn't have many (but not 0) of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428166</id>
	<title>hmmm</title>
	<author>neuromountain</author>
	<datestamp>1268245680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I started with APL. After the mushrooms wore off, I switched to BASIC and then FORTRAN and then.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I started with APL .
After the mushrooms wore off , I switched to BASIC and then FORTRAN and then.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I started with APL.
After the mushrooms wore off, I switched to BASIC and then FORTRAN and then.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423794</id>
	<title>I started with BASIC</title>
	<author>OpenSourced</author>
	<datestamp>1268254380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Years before I took any formal course, I was looking at the manual of a BASIC computer and making circles on the screen by programming a dot that kept to the same distance to another and rotated. I still remember the emotion of seeing a real circle emerge on screen. I don't know if BASIC helped me much to program, but the immediacy of the thing certainly did much to keep my interest alive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Years before I took any formal course , I was looking at the manual of a BASIC computer and making circles on the screen by programming a dot that kept to the same distance to another and rotated .
I still remember the emotion of seeing a real circle emerge on screen .
I do n't know if BASIC helped me much to program , but the immediacy of the thing certainly did much to keep my interest alive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Years before I took any formal course, I was looking at the manual of a BASIC computer and making circles on the screen by programming a dot that kept to the same distance to another and rotated.
I still remember the emotion of seeing a real circle emerge on screen.
I don't know if BASIC helped me much to program, but the immediacy of the thing certainly did much to keep my interest alive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424352</id>
	<title>Laziness motivates learning better programming</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1268219400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With the old 80s BASICs you had a lot of work on your hands to organise a program. You had to note down line numbers of subroutines and be disciplined in choice of variable names so as not to create unwanted side-effects. As more structured languages came along, this effort was no longer necessary - I was happy to learn Pascal, then C and C# because of the possibility of less typing, less notemaking and less headscratching.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the old 80s BASICs you had a lot of work on your hands to organise a program .
You had to note down line numbers of subroutines and be disciplined in choice of variable names so as not to create unwanted side-effects .
As more structured languages came along , this effort was no longer necessary - I was happy to learn Pascal , then C and C # because of the possibility of less typing , less notemaking and less headscratching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the old 80s BASICs you had a lot of work on your hands to organise a program.
You had to note down line numbers of subroutines and be disciplined in choice of variable names so as not to create unwanted side-effects.
As more structured languages came along, this effort was no longer necessary - I was happy to learn Pascal, then C and C# because of the possibility of less typing, less notemaking and less headscratching.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427466</id>
	<title>Re:Bah</title>
	<author>Hythlodaeus</author>
	<datestamp>1268242440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's well known that Dijkstra was a curmudgeon with hearty disdain for anyone who wrote software on anything but a chalkboard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's well known that Dijkstra was a curmudgeon with hearty disdain for anyone who wrote software on anything but a chalkboard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's well known that Dijkstra was a curmudgeon with hearty disdain for anyone who wrote software on anything but a chalkboard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423902</id>
	<title>Dijkstra ? Legend ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268212320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dijkstra, who taught at Eindhoven Technical University - which is how I superficially came to know him - was mostly a self-declared legend. He cultivated his own myth, even going as far as publishing a little book with his own quotes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dijkstra , who taught at Eindhoven Technical University - which is how I superficially came to know him - was mostly a self-declared legend .
He cultivated his own myth , even going as far as publishing a little book with his own quotes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dijkstra, who taught at Eindhoven Technical University - which is how I superficially came to know him - was mostly a self-declared legend.
He cultivated his own myth, even going as far as publishing a little book with his own quotes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425750</id>
	<title>There's a better way to do it...</title>
	<author>Fished</author>
	<datestamp>1268234580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like most, I disagree.  The bottom line is that my early days programming BASIC (first on a Commodore VIC 20, then on an Altair, then on a Commodore 64 which is about when I graduated to assembler, then to C.  But I still did some BASIC right through the 90's from time to time until I learned perl for "quick and dirty" stuff.</p><p>I think that the most important thing that BASIC taught me was that, there <b>had</b> to be a better way.  So, I started to learn different programming languages, different environments.  And I eventually learned the habit of using the best language for the job.   If I needed to make "Patrick Rox!" scroll up the screen, ad infinitum, I used BASIC.  Along the way I was forced to learn many languages, and learned most of the standard ones as well as some oddities (like Forth, Prolog, etc.)  If I needed to write something fast, I used Assembler.  If I needed to write a lot of code, I used C or Pascal or (later) perl.  Nowadays, I do most of my code in Ruby, but at work I just got stuck with a project that's a combination of perl and shell and it was no biggy, and I decided yesterday to do a personal project in Python/Django because of it's better unicode support (the project will be mostly "about" handling Greek texts.)  From an early age, I developed a solid understanding that languages are fungible, and that there's often a better language and environment for the job and than the one I might know best.</p><p>This contrasts with the kids I see nowadays (grump grump) who, if they bother to program at all, only seem to ever learn one programming language and one programming environment and tend to think that that's the end-all-be-all solution to everything.  If they know VB, it's all VB.  If C++, then it's all got to be C++.  Java, python, ruby... you get the idea.  Why?  Because none of those languages (except maybe VB) really suck, and certainly none of them suck nearly as much as good old Microsoft BASIC on an early 80's Micro did.  So it's easy to just stay stuck in a single language and never learn a vital lesson that separates "prorammers" from "people who write some code."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like most , I disagree .
The bottom line is that my early days programming BASIC ( first on a Commodore VIC 20 , then on an Altair , then on a Commodore 64 which is about when I graduated to assembler , then to C. But I still did some BASIC right through the 90 's from time to time until I learned perl for " quick and dirty " stuff.I think that the most important thing that BASIC taught me was that , there had to be a better way .
So , I started to learn different programming languages , different environments .
And I eventually learned the habit of using the best language for the job .
If I needed to make " Patrick Rox !
" scroll up the screen , ad infinitum , I used BASIC .
Along the way I was forced to learn many languages , and learned most of the standard ones as well as some oddities ( like Forth , Prolog , etc .
) If I needed to write something fast , I used Assembler .
If I needed to write a lot of code , I used C or Pascal or ( later ) perl .
Nowadays , I do most of my code in Ruby , but at work I just got stuck with a project that 's a combination of perl and shell and it was no biggy , and I decided yesterday to do a personal project in Python/Django because of it 's better unicode support ( the project will be mostly " about " handling Greek texts .
) From an early age , I developed a solid understanding that languages are fungible , and that there 's often a better language and environment for the job and than the one I might know best.This contrasts with the kids I see nowadays ( grump grump ) who , if they bother to program at all , only seem to ever learn one programming language and one programming environment and tend to think that that 's the end-all-be-all solution to everything .
If they know VB , it 's all VB .
If C + + , then it 's all got to be C + + .
Java , python , ruby... you get the idea .
Why ? Because none of those languages ( except maybe VB ) really suck , and certainly none of them suck nearly as much as good old Microsoft BASIC on an early 80 's Micro did .
So it 's easy to just stay stuck in a single language and never learn a vital lesson that separates " prorammers " from " people who write some code .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like most, I disagree.
The bottom line is that my early days programming BASIC (first on a Commodore VIC 20, then on an Altair, then on a Commodore 64 which is about when I graduated to assembler, then to C.  But I still did some BASIC right through the 90's from time to time until I learned perl for "quick and dirty" stuff.I think that the most important thing that BASIC taught me was that, there had to be a better way.
So, I started to learn different programming languages, different environments.
And I eventually learned the habit of using the best language for the job.
If I needed to make "Patrick Rox!
" scroll up the screen, ad infinitum, I used BASIC.
Along the way I was forced to learn many languages, and learned most of the standard ones as well as some oddities (like Forth, Prolog, etc.
)  If I needed to write something fast, I used Assembler.
If I needed to write a lot of code, I used C or Pascal or (later) perl.
Nowadays, I do most of my code in Ruby, but at work I just got stuck with a project that's a combination of perl and shell and it was no biggy, and I decided yesterday to do a personal project in Python/Django because of it's better unicode support (the project will be mostly "about" handling Greek texts.
)  From an early age, I developed a solid understanding that languages are fungible, and that there's often a better language and environment for the job and than the one I might know best.This contrasts with the kids I see nowadays (grump grump) who, if they bother to program at all, only seem to ever learn one programming language and one programming environment and tend to think that that's the end-all-be-all solution to everything.
If they know VB, it's all VB.
If C++, then it's all got to be C++.
Java, python, ruby... you get the idea.
Why?  Because none of those languages (except maybe VB) really suck, and certainly none of them suck nearly as much as good old Microsoft BASIC on an early 80's Micro did.
So it's easy to just stay stuck in a single language and never learn a vital lesson that separates "prorammers" from "people who write some code.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427080</id>
	<title>Classic BASICs aren't dead yet...</title>
	<author>VanessaE</author>
	<datestamp>1268240700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised no one's mentioned <a href="http://blassic.org/" title="blassic.org">Blassic</a> [blassic.org] yet.  It works quite well for the odd project, or just to play around with.  You can use it with or without line numbers and it supports a handful of different syntax models.  I believe there are graphics/windowing commands, and it supports file I/O operations as well.  You can even call programs from the command line and pass arguments to them, similar to regular scripting languages.</p><p>Since I'm not that great with other languages, it has proven itself rather useful a time or two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised no one 's mentioned Blassic [ blassic.org ] yet .
It works quite well for the odd project , or just to play around with .
You can use it with or without line numbers and it supports a handful of different syntax models .
I believe there are graphics/windowing commands , and it supports file I/O operations as well .
You can even call programs from the command line and pass arguments to them , similar to regular scripting languages.Since I 'm not that great with other languages , it has proven itself rather useful a time or two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised no one's mentioned Blassic [blassic.org] yet.
It works quite well for the odd project, or just to play around with.
You can use it with or without line numbers and it supports a handful of different syntax models.
I believe there are graphics/windowing commands, and it supports file I/O operations as well.
You can even call programs from the command line and pass arguments to them, similar to regular scripting languages.Since I'm not that great with other languages, it has proven itself rather useful a time or two.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423926</id>
	<title>Who learns BASIC anymore, anyway?</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1268212560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are people still teaching or learning BASIC?</p><p>I know JavaScript, PHP, and AppleScript, and I learned them so I could script the Web browser, the Web server, and the Mac desktop, respectively. With just a few simple lines of each you can make really practical and productive things happen that seem to me like they would reward the beginner. My background is publishing, though. Maybe I'm biased towards programming that makes documents.</p><p>What does BASIC actually do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are people still teaching or learning BASIC ? I know JavaScript , PHP , and AppleScript , and I learned them so I could script the Web browser , the Web server , and the Mac desktop , respectively .
With just a few simple lines of each you can make really practical and productive things happen that seem to me like they would reward the beginner .
My background is publishing , though .
Maybe I 'm biased towards programming that makes documents.What does BASIC actually do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are people still teaching or learning BASIC?I know JavaScript, PHP, and AppleScript, and I learned them so I could script the Web browser, the Web server, and the Mac desktop, respectively.
With just a few simple lines of each you can make really practical and productive things happen that seem to me like they would reward the beginner.
My background is publishing, though.
Maybe I'm biased towards programming that makes documents.What does BASIC actually do?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425062</id>
	<title>BASIC then...</title>
	<author>yoshi\_mon</author>
	<datestamp>1268230560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My 1st Hello World! was done on a Pet.  I then got my own 1st computer a TI99 4/a that had of course BASIC which I played around with but only in a very limited fashion.  (Again mostly Hello World! type stuff.  Hey I was not even 10.)</p><p>It was when I got my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//e that I really started, and had the capacity to, looking beyond a simple goto loop and did so with that Apple.  It was neat because at the time there were all sorts of cool tricks that people would use.  Such as poking a small assembly program into $300 to speed up their Applesoft program.</p><p>Furthermore the monitor was right there.  You could drop into direct assembly mode at any point.  I had a friend who could program directly into the monitor and it was very cool to watch.  My talents were much more modest and I needed a real assembler to do anything more than the very basics but it did let me cut my teeth on something other than BASIC.</p><p>So my point would be that BASIC is ok to start with but it should never be the only thing that people who want to know what programming is all about should see.  From those roots I remember looking at Pascal and Forth just to get an idea of what out there.  Mind you I am not, and have never really been, a coder other than scripts and whatnot but I have the background to at least sit at a table with programmers and have an intelligent conversation.  Gives me nice nitch in being a liaison between the suits and the hardcore geeks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My 1st Hello World !
was done on a Pet .
I then got my own 1st computer a TI99 4/a that had of course BASIC which I played around with but only in a very limited fashion .
( Again mostly Hello World !
type stuff .
Hey I was not even 10 .
) It was when I got my //e that I really started , and had the capacity to , looking beyond a simple goto loop and did so with that Apple .
It was neat because at the time there were all sorts of cool tricks that people would use .
Such as poking a small assembly program into $ 300 to speed up their Applesoft program.Furthermore the monitor was right there .
You could drop into direct assembly mode at any point .
I had a friend who could program directly into the monitor and it was very cool to watch .
My talents were much more modest and I needed a real assembler to do anything more than the very basics but it did let me cut my teeth on something other than BASIC.So my point would be that BASIC is ok to start with but it should never be the only thing that people who want to know what programming is all about should see .
From those roots I remember looking at Pascal and Forth just to get an idea of what out there .
Mind you I am not , and have never really been , a coder other than scripts and whatnot but I have the background to at least sit at a table with programmers and have an intelligent conversation .
Gives me nice nitch in being a liaison between the suits and the hardcore geeks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My 1st Hello World!
was done on a Pet.
I then got my own 1st computer a TI99 4/a that had of course BASIC which I played around with but only in a very limited fashion.
(Again mostly Hello World!
type stuff.
Hey I was not even 10.
)It was when I got my //e that I really started, and had the capacity to, looking beyond a simple goto loop and did so with that Apple.
It was neat because at the time there were all sorts of cool tricks that people would use.
Such as poking a small assembly program into $300 to speed up their Applesoft program.Furthermore the monitor was right there.
You could drop into direct assembly mode at any point.
I had a friend who could program directly into the monitor and it was very cool to watch.
My talents were much more modest and I needed a real assembler to do anything more than the very basics but it did let me cut my teeth on something other than BASIC.So my point would be that BASIC is ok to start with but it should never be the only thing that people who want to know what programming is all about should see.
From those roots I remember looking at Pascal and Forth just to get an idea of what out there.
Mind you I am not, and have never really been, a coder other than scripts and whatnot but I have the background to at least sit at a table with programmers and have an intelligent conversation.
Gives me nice nitch in being a liaison between the suits and the hardcore geeks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423834</id>
	<title>Bah</title>
	<author>tsotha</author>
	<datestamp>1268254740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Computer-science legend Edsger W. Dijkstra famously wrote: 'It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration'</p></div></blockquote><p>Like all eminently quotable people, Dijkstra tended to hyperbole and oversimplification.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Computer-science legend Edsger W. Dijkstra famously wrote : 'It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC : as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration'Like all eminently quotable people , Dijkstra tended to hyperbole and oversimplification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computer-science legend Edsger W. Dijkstra famously wrote: 'It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration'Like all eminently quotable people, Dijkstra tended to hyperbole and oversimplification.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31430208</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>zildgulf</author>
	<datestamp>1268211960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly, I owed my skills in IBM and Intel assembler programming to learning BASIC first and then Pascal.  BASIC taught me how to use programming languages with limited control structures and Pascal taught me good programming habits.<br> <br> When I then learned Assembler, Fortran, C, and Java I could build from that foundation.  I could program using GOTOs in the proper context and still have easily readable code.  GOTOs are handy when you are in a conditions loop and you need to exit immediately in the middle of the code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , I owed my skills in IBM and Intel assembler programming to learning BASIC first and then Pascal .
BASIC taught me how to use programming languages with limited control structures and Pascal taught me good programming habits .
When I then learned Assembler , Fortran , C , and Java I could build from that foundation .
I could program using GOTOs in the proper context and still have easily readable code .
GOTOs are handy when you are in a conditions loop and you need to exit immediately in the middle of the code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, I owed my skills in IBM and Intel assembler programming to learning BASIC first and then Pascal.
BASIC taught me how to use programming languages with limited control structures and Pascal taught me good programming habits.
When I then learned Assembler, Fortran, C, and Java I could build from that foundation.
I could program using GOTOs in the proper context and still have easily readable code.
GOTOs are handy when you are in a conditions loop and you need to exit immediately in the middle of the code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425558</id>
	<title>Re:Appreciate the difference</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1268233440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That sounds familiar to me too.  Quite a lot of companies seem to be asking for specific experience in a particular language or a particular kind of development.  This does strike me as pretty bizarre sometimes, since often that doesn't sound like the truly hard part of the problem they're recruiting someone to solve!  Obviously everyone who prides themselves on their abilities probably regards their personal expertise as being the hardest / most advanced thing out there but it's a bit worrying if that's taken to an extreme of excluding skilled programmers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That sounds familiar to me too .
Quite a lot of companies seem to be asking for specific experience in a particular language or a particular kind of development .
This does strike me as pretty bizarre sometimes , since often that does n't sound like the truly hard part of the problem they 're recruiting someone to solve !
Obviously everyone who prides themselves on their abilities probably regards their personal expertise as being the hardest / most advanced thing out there but it 's a bit worrying if that 's taken to an extreme of excluding skilled programmers .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sounds familiar to me too.
Quite a lot of companies seem to be asking for specific experience in a particular language or a particular kind of development.
This does strike me as pretty bizarre sometimes, since often that doesn't sound like the truly hard part of the problem they're recruiting someone to solve!
Obviously everyone who prides themselves on their abilities probably regards their personal expertise as being the hardest / most advanced thing out there but it's a bit worrying if that's taken to an extreme of excluding skilled programmers ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428000</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>KlaymenDK</author>
	<datestamp>1268244840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. Good stuff CAN be done with GOTO statements.</p><p>The original Zork game basically has the player wandering from room to room. In the source code, believe it or not, each room has its own 6-digit label, and the game uses nothing but GOTO statements to move the player around.</p><p>And yet, it's a pretty decent game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Good stuff CAN be done with GOTO statements.The original Zork game basically has the player wandering from room to room .
In the source code , believe it or not , each room has its own 6-digit label , and the game uses nothing but GOTO statements to move the player around.And yet , it 's a pretty decent game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Good stuff CAN be done with GOTO statements.The original Zork game basically has the player wandering from room to room.
In the source code, believe it or not, each room has its own 6-digit label, and the game uses nothing but GOTO statements to move the player around.And yet, it's a pretty decent game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425968</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is great for kids</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1268235840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Visusal Basic HAS "structures, classes, polymorphism, OO, etc.". My worst complaint about it is that I'm never sure when it is passing by reference or passing by value.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Visusal Basic HAS " structures , classes , polymorphism , OO , etc. " .
My worst complaint about it is that I 'm never sure when it is passing by reference or passing by value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Visusal Basic HAS "structures, classes, polymorphism, OO, etc.".
My worst complaint about it is that I'm never sure when it is passing by reference or passing by value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423756</id>
	<title>Re:Funny argument</title>
	<author>azgard</author>
	<datestamp>1268253780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should be also said, though, that for people who programmed on 8-bit computers (I had ZX Spectrum), there was hardly any other way than to have spaghetti code at the time. OOP was non-existent and Lisp too complex. At the time, global variables, fixed-length arrays and GOTOs were the way how to actually program effectively (both in BASIC and assembler).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should be also said , though , that for people who programmed on 8-bit computers ( I had ZX Spectrum ) , there was hardly any other way than to have spaghetti code at the time .
OOP was non-existent and Lisp too complex .
At the time , global variables , fixed-length arrays and GOTOs were the way how to actually program effectively ( both in BASIC and assembler ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should be also said, though, that for people who programmed on 8-bit computers (I had ZX Spectrum), there was hardly any other way than to have spaghetti code at the time.
OOP was non-existent and Lisp too complex.
At the time, global variables, fixed-length arrays and GOTOs were the way how to actually program effectively (both in BASIC and assembler).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31435638</id>
	<title>Long Live the TI-99/4A !</title>
	<author>EricTheO</author>
	<datestamp>1268301540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had no cartridges or cassette tape storage for my TI-99/4A, so I had to type in all the BASIC code from books and manuals. I would then play around with the code to alter games. I once looped a prtion of a game where little stick men would randomly collide with mugs of beer and then fall down with a chat bubble then popping up saying "Whoops too Drunk!", the "highlight" of my programing career!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)  I ran it on my color TV in a window facing the apartments courtyard. That apartment building was like Animal House circa 1980ish. It was a hit of the party though after the first 2 kegs where emptied.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had no cartridges or cassette tape storage for my TI-99/4A , so I had to type in all the BASIC code from books and manuals .
I would then play around with the code to alter games .
I once looped a prtion of a game where little stick men would randomly collide with mugs of beer and then fall down with a chat bubble then popping up saying " Whoops too Drunk !
" , the " highlight " of my programing career !
; - ) I ran it on my color TV in a window facing the apartments courtyard .
That apartment building was like Animal House circa 1980ish .
It was a hit of the party though after the first 2 kegs where emptied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had no cartridges or cassette tape storage for my TI-99/4A, so I had to type in all the BASIC code from books and manuals.
I would then play around with the code to alter games.
I once looped a prtion of a game where little stick men would randomly collide with mugs of beer and then fall down with a chat bubble then popping up saying "Whoops too Drunk!
", the "highlight" of my programing career!
;-)  I ran it on my color TV in a window facing the apartments courtyard.
That apartment building was like Animal House circa 1980ish.
It was a hit of the party though after the first 2 kegs where emptied.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424720</id>
	<title>BASIC was rather bad</title>
	<author>lucian1900</author>
	<datestamp>1268225460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While BASIC was (is?) a rather bad language overall, programmers of today are blessed with at least two excellent high-level languages with large communities that they can use for almost anything: Python and Ruby.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While BASIC was ( is ?
) a rather bad language overall , programmers of today are blessed with at least two excellent high-level languages with large communities that they can use for almost anything : Python and Ruby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While BASIC was (is?
) a rather bad language overall, programmers of today are blessed with at least two excellent high-level languages with large communities that they can use for almost anything: Python and Ruby.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31429496</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is irrelevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268252040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd say that if anyone is considering BASIC as a first language, they should choose Pascal instead.</p></div><p>Compared to which BASIC, for what reasons, and which Pascal ?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But to be completely honest, these days OO programming has become so important that it's probably better to start off in Java or C# from the start.</p></div><p>Do you not think Visual Basic<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is an equally good platform for learning OOP/OOD ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say that if anyone is considering BASIC as a first language , they should choose Pascal instead.Compared to which BASIC , for what reasons , and which Pascal ? But to be completely honest , these days OO programming has become so important that it 's probably better to start off in Java or C # from the start.Do you not think Visual Basic .NET is an equally good platform for learning OOP/OOD ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say that if anyone is considering BASIC as a first language, they should choose Pascal instead.Compared to which BASIC, for what reasons, and which Pascal ?But to be completely honest, these days OO programming has become so important that it's probably better to start off in Java or C# from the start.Do you not think Visual Basic .NET is an equally good platform for learning OOP/OOD ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426808</id>
	<title>The real problem with BASIC.</title>
	<author>Steauengeglase</author>
	<datestamp>1268239560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has nothing to do with the language crippling your mind (though some days I do wonder about VB), but because the language has been taught in High School/Middle School Computer/Typing classes where teachers are more than happy to pass anyone who can print text to a screen and type 30 words a minute. It was (, no idea if it is still taught in public school) just a random elective that pretty much anyone could take and pass. Some people pass it, don't enjoy it, exclaim that they can program and for the rest of their lives feel that programmers are overpaid, entitled nerds who would serve the world better if they were ditch diggers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has nothing to do with the language crippling your mind ( though some days I do wonder about VB ) , but because the language has been taught in High School/Middle School Computer/Typing classes where teachers are more than happy to pass anyone who can print text to a screen and type 30 words a minute .
It was ( , no idea if it is still taught in public school ) just a random elective that pretty much anyone could take and pass .
Some people pass it , do n't enjoy it , exclaim that they can program and for the rest of their lives feel that programmers are overpaid , entitled nerds who would serve the world better if they were ditch diggers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has nothing to do with the language crippling your mind (though some days I do wonder about VB), but because the language has been taught in High School/Middle School Computer/Typing classes where teachers are more than happy to pass anyone who can print text to a screen and type 30 words a minute.
It was (, no idea if it is still taught in public school) just a random elective that pretty much anyone could take and pass.
Some people pass it, don't enjoy it, exclaim that they can program and for the rest of their lives feel that programmers are overpaid, entitled nerds who would serve the world better if they were ditch diggers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31434462</id>
	<title>ahh, time sharing BASIC!</title>
	<author>vaporland</author>
	<datestamp>1268241600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember time sharing? We were running BASIC on a Hewlett-Packard Series 2000 Access minicomputer using a Teletype dialup terminal session at 10 characters per second, while the same time 31 other people were doing the same thing. It had a rudimentary operating system and was fairly bulletproof. The hard drive (about 100MB) was the size of a small washing machine.<br> <br>Of course, it was the secret objective of my classmates to create programs that would bring the entire system to a crawl.<br> <br>The HP2000 did not directly support any kind of instant messaging (other than master console warnings). <br> <br>We did some pretty cool stuff in BASIC. My classmates and I created a real-time chat program in BASIC in 1975 that let us talk to students at different schools. Another guy had written a series of FOR / NEXT loops that would play "Blue Danube" through an AM radio plugged into the HP2000's backplane power supply...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember time sharing ?
We were running BASIC on a Hewlett-Packard Series 2000 Access minicomputer using a Teletype dialup terminal session at 10 characters per second , while the same time 31 other people were doing the same thing .
It had a rudimentary operating system and was fairly bulletproof .
The hard drive ( about 100MB ) was the size of a small washing machine .
Of course , it was the secret objective of my classmates to create programs that would bring the entire system to a crawl .
The HP2000 did not directly support any kind of instant messaging ( other than master console warnings ) .
We did some pretty cool stuff in BASIC .
My classmates and I created a real-time chat program in BASIC in 1975 that let us talk to students at different schools .
Another guy had written a series of FOR / NEXT loops that would play " Blue Danube " through an AM radio plugged into the HP2000 's backplane power supply.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember time sharing?
We were running BASIC on a Hewlett-Packard Series 2000 Access minicomputer using a Teletype dialup terminal session at 10 characters per second, while the same time 31 other people were doing the same thing.
It had a rudimentary operating system and was fairly bulletproof.
The hard drive (about 100MB) was the size of a small washing machine.
Of course, it was the secret objective of my classmates to create programs that would bring the entire system to a crawl.
The HP2000 did not directly support any kind of instant messaging (other than master console warnings).
We did some pretty cool stuff in BASIC.
My classmates and I created a real-time chat program in BASIC in 1975 that let us talk to students at different schools.
Another guy had written a series of FOR / NEXT loops that would play "Blue Danube" through an AM radio plugged into the HP2000's backplane power supply...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427794</id>
	<title>Can't put state of mind on a resume.</title>
	<author>gillbates</author>
	<datestamp>1268243820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
While I agree that good programming is a state of mind, the problem is that HR can't recognize good programmers.  In fact, a large number of organizations can't recognize the difference between a good programmer and someone who merely has experience in a given language.
</p><p>
There seems to be this notion in Corporate America that if you haven't been formally trained in a language (i.e. college courses), or have some documentation of doing it professionally (i.e., on your resume), then you don't know it and you can't learn it.  When I was in college, I really believed that getting a degree would afford me a job working among intellectuals.  Instead, I'm working among people just as stupid and ignorant as the blue collar counterparts they hold in contempt.  Unable to learn something of their own volition, without having been taught, the notion that someone can, or will, learn something new is completely foreign to them.  They can't understand how a C programmer could also be proficient in Java.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree that good programming is a state of mind , the problem is that HR ca n't recognize good programmers .
In fact , a large number of organizations ca n't recognize the difference between a good programmer and someone who merely has experience in a given language .
There seems to be this notion in Corporate America that if you have n't been formally trained in a language ( i.e .
college courses ) , or have some documentation of doing it professionally ( i.e. , on your resume ) , then you do n't know it and you ca n't learn it .
When I was in college , I really believed that getting a degree would afford me a job working among intellectuals .
Instead , I 'm working among people just as stupid and ignorant as the blue collar counterparts they hold in contempt .
Unable to learn something of their own volition , without having been taught , the notion that someone can , or will , learn something new is completely foreign to them .
They ca n't understand how a C programmer could also be proficient in Java .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
While I agree that good programming is a state of mind, the problem is that HR can't recognize good programmers.
In fact, a large number of organizations can't recognize the difference between a good programmer and someone who merely has experience in a given language.
There seems to be this notion in Corporate America that if you haven't been formally trained in a language (i.e.
college courses), or have some documentation of doing it professionally (i.e., on your resume), then you don't know it and you can't learn it.
When I was in college, I really believed that getting a degree would afford me a job working among intellectuals.
Instead, I'm working among people just as stupid and ignorant as the blue collar counterparts they hold in contempt.
Unable to learn something of their own volition, without having been taught, the notion that someone can, or will, learn something new is completely foreign to them.
They can't understand how a C programmer could also be proficient in Java.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423766</id>
	<title>Instant Basic</title>
	<author>tsackett</author>
	<datestamp>1268253900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone else remember learning to program with the book "Instant Basic"? It was formatted like a Trader Joe's advertisement, with lots of Victorian clip art, and it let a lot of us learn the basics of programming -- conditional branching, loops, variables -- without actually having access to a computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else remember learning to program with the book " Instant Basic " ?
It was formatted like a Trader Joe 's advertisement , with lots of Victorian clip art , and it let a lot of us learn the basics of programming -- conditional branching , loops , variables -- without actually having access to a computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else remember learning to program with the book "Instant Basic"?
It was formatted like a Trader Joe's advertisement, with lots of Victorian clip art, and it let a lot of us learn the basics of programming -- conditional branching, loops, variables -- without actually having access to a computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423990</id>
	<title>Hey, I know..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268213580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know spaghetti code, but then again I am mentally mutilated by Brainfuck2D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know spaghetti code , but then again I am mentally mutilated by Brainfuck2D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know spaghetti code, but then again I am mentally mutilated by Brainfuck2D.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425906</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is irrelevant</title>
	<author>The\_Wilschon</author>
	<datestamp>1268235600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>10 I started with GW-BASIC, and now IF my colleagues need some programming help, THEN I am the GOTO guy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>10 I started with GW-BASIC , and now IF my colleagues need some programming help , THEN I am the GOTO guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10 I started with GW-BASIC, and now IF my colleagues need some programming help, THEN I am the GOTO guy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424654</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is irrelevant</title>
	<author>King InuYasha</author>
	<datestamp>1268224140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My university here teaches intro with C++, which they feel isn't a good choice. However, they teach it because Electrical Engineers need to know a "C" or "C-like" language. Apparently they want to shift to Python in the near future, which means they need to work out how to bridge between Python and C in Intermediate (which is another required course for Electrical Engineers)...</htmltext>
<tokenext>My university here teaches intro with C + + , which they feel is n't a good choice .
However , they teach it because Electrical Engineers need to know a " C " or " C-like " language .
Apparently they want to shift to Python in the near future , which means they need to work out how to bridge between Python and C in Intermediate ( which is another required course for Electrical Engineers ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My university here teaches intro with C++, which they feel isn't a good choice.
However, they teach it because Electrical Engineers need to know a "C" or "C-like" language.
Apparently they want to shift to Python in the near future, which means they need to work out how to bridge between Python and C in Intermediate (which is another required course for Electrical Engineers)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428354</id>
	<title>Holier-than-thou</title>
	<author>Bobb Sledd</author>
	<datestamp>1268246760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ugh.  I get so tired of this Elitist "holier-than-thou" crap.  Define bad program.  Program with lots of bugs?  If a program works as intended and it requires no updates, users are happy with it, it's secure, and it is useful, then what difference does it make if it was made entirely using GOTOs ?</p><p>There's this "Well if it isn't made with C++ it's shit" mentality again.</p><p>Look, you can make really great programs without typing and scoping.  And very quickly, too, without bugs.  You just have to be good at making and keeping your own conventions, keeping things modular, and doing things in the most efficient manner.</p><p>Beyond that, a judge of poor programming?  Bite me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugh .
I get so tired of this Elitist " holier-than-thou " crap .
Define bad program .
Program with lots of bugs ?
If a program works as intended and it requires no updates , users are happy with it , it 's secure , and it is useful , then what difference does it make if it was made entirely using GOTOs ? There 's this " Well if it is n't made with C + + it 's shit " mentality again.Look , you can make really great programs without typing and scoping .
And very quickly , too , without bugs .
You just have to be good at making and keeping your own conventions , keeping things modular , and doing things in the most efficient manner.Beyond that , a judge of poor programming ?
Bite me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugh.
I get so tired of this Elitist "holier-than-thou" crap.
Define bad program.
Program with lots of bugs?
If a program works as intended and it requires no updates, users are happy with it, it's secure, and it is useful, then what difference does it make if it was made entirely using GOTOs ?There's this "Well if it isn't made with C++ it's shit" mentality again.Look, you can make really great programs without typing and scoping.
And very quickly, too, without bugs.
You just have to be good at making and keeping your own conventions, keeping things modular, and doing things in the most efficient manner.Beyond that, a judge of poor programming?
Bite me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424176</id>
	<title>Re:It's not the language, it's the teacher</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1268216100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most folks who have learned C++ learned it in a classroom with a real teacher. Most folks who learned BASIC learned by banging away on a computer keyboard at home.

Most people aren't very good at teaching themselves. I've seen this a lot with people trying to learn Morse code and giving up in frustration.</p></div><p>
I stand as an exception to your rule. I learnt Basic and Pascal myself then was taught C, COBOL, LISP, etc at uni, then learnt C++ by myself mainly because C++ was still new in the late 80's. If you learnt C via the K&amp;R route then C++ is fairly obvious, classes are just data structs with function pointers. In fact the the Watcom C++ I leant with was just a set of #define statements on top of Watcom C.
<br> <br>
As for learning morse code that's just a boring memory excercise that cannot be ported to anything else. For example most C programmers have more or less memorised ascii codes but that doesn't help them one bit if they want to memorise morse or ebcdic codes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most folks who have learned C + + learned it in a classroom with a real teacher .
Most folks who learned BASIC learned by banging away on a computer keyboard at home .
Most people are n't very good at teaching themselves .
I 've seen this a lot with people trying to learn Morse code and giving up in frustration .
I stand as an exception to your rule .
I learnt Basic and Pascal myself then was taught C , COBOL , LISP , etc at uni , then learnt C + + by myself mainly because C + + was still new in the late 80 's .
If you learnt C via the K&amp;R route then C + + is fairly obvious , classes are just data structs with function pointers .
In fact the the Watcom C + + I leant with was just a set of # define statements on top of Watcom C . As for learning morse code that 's just a boring memory excercise that can not be ported to anything else .
For example most C programmers have more or less memorised ascii codes but that does n't help them one bit if they want to memorise morse or ebcdic codes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most folks who have learned C++ learned it in a classroom with a real teacher.
Most folks who learned BASIC learned by banging away on a computer keyboard at home.
Most people aren't very good at teaching themselves.
I've seen this a lot with people trying to learn Morse code and giving up in frustration.
I stand as an exception to your rule.
I learnt Basic and Pascal myself then was taught C, COBOL, LISP, etc at uni, then learnt C++ by myself mainly because C++ was still new in the late 80's.
If you learnt C via the K&amp;R route then C++ is fairly obvious, classes are just data structs with function pointers.
In fact the the Watcom C++ I leant with was just a set of #define statements on top of Watcom C.
 
As for learning morse code that's just a boring memory excercise that cannot be ported to anything else.
For example most C programmers have more or less memorised ascii codes but that doesn't help them one bit if they want to memorise morse or ebcdic codes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426582</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>Frequency Domain</author>
	<datestamp>1268238480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The irony is that under the covers, it's all done with jump instructions anyway.</p></div><p>That's irrelevant.  Programming languages exist for humans, not for the computer.  The entire development of programming languages has been a drive to abstract away from how the hardware works and towards modes that facilitate expressiveness and power for humans.  For example, there are no objects at the machine level, but humans often view the world as classes of similar objects that interact, which makes that a very expressive paradigm for modeling.  (The first object-oriented language was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simula" title="wikipedia.org">Simula</a> [wikipedia.org], and was created to facilitate simulation modeling way back in the 1960's.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The irony is that under the covers , it 's all done with jump instructions anyway.That 's irrelevant .
Programming languages exist for humans , not for the computer .
The entire development of programming languages has been a drive to abstract away from how the hardware works and towards modes that facilitate expressiveness and power for humans .
For example , there are no objects at the machine level , but humans often view the world as classes of similar objects that interact , which makes that a very expressive paradigm for modeling .
( The first object-oriented language was Simula [ wikipedia.org ] , and was created to facilitate simulation modeling way back in the 1960 's .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The irony is that under the covers, it's all done with jump instructions anyway.That's irrelevant.
Programming languages exist for humans, not for the computer.
The entire development of programming languages has been a drive to abstract away from how the hardware works and towards modes that facilitate expressiveness and power for humans.
For example, there are no objects at the machine level, but humans often view the world as classes of similar objects that interact, which makes that a very expressive paradigm for modeling.
(The first object-oriented language was Simula [wikipedia.org], and was created to facilitate simulation modeling way back in the 1960's.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424830</id>
	<title>Re:BBC BASIC</title>
	<author>Richard Russell</author>
	<datestamp>1268227200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was disappointed to see you refer to BBC BASIC in the past tense, when it's still used today and still has the neat features such as a built-in assembler.  In fact the latest version of BBC BASIC for Windows was released at the beginning of this year.  There's a list of some of the more interesting and surprising applications of BBC BASIC over the last 28 years or so at <a href="http://www.bbcbasic.co.uk/bbcbasic/birthday/" title="bbcbasic.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbcbasic.co.uk/bbcbasic/birthday/</a> [bbcbasic.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was disappointed to see you refer to BBC BASIC in the past tense , when it 's still used today and still has the neat features such as a built-in assembler .
In fact the latest version of BBC BASIC for Windows was released at the beginning of this year .
There 's a list of some of the more interesting and surprising applications of BBC BASIC over the last 28 years or so at http : //www.bbcbasic.co.uk/bbcbasic/birthday/ [ bbcbasic.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was disappointed to see you refer to BBC BASIC in the past tense, when it's still used today and still has the neat features such as a built-in assembler.
In fact the latest version of BBC BASIC for Windows was released at the beginning of this year.
There's a list of some of the more interesting and surprising applications of BBC BASIC over the last 28 years or so at http://www.bbcbasic.co.uk/bbcbasic/birthday/ [bbcbasic.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423852</id>
	<title>It wasn't all that great...</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1268211780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but it was BASIC. And the expectations were so low. "10 PRINT "Hello, World!", "20 GOTO 10" and it started doing something. The programming manual was well worn by the time I was 10, would that have happened with any other language? I doubt it. Things like lack of scoping makes the easy things easier and the hard things harder. The point isn't to learn everything from your first language, the point is to get started and interested at all. Moving to DOS was sorta ok, but moving to Windows killed my interest. C/C++ was just horribly complicated, I remember trying to get up a window in the Win32 API and it was like wtf, how hard can this be? MFC was even worse, Java (really early java, on hardware of the time) was slow and unresponsive as fuck, Javascript was a toy language for websites and never really like Pascal or VB much either. I didn't regain my interest in programming until I went with C++/Qt, or maybe more Qt than C++ really. QMainWindow *mw = new QMainWindow(), mw-&gt;show(). The hard stuff is still hard, but I very very rarely find I write "overhead" code that I shouldn't have to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but it was BASIC .
And the expectations were so low .
" 10 PRINT " Hello , World !
" , " 20 GOTO 10 " and it started doing something .
The programming manual was well worn by the time I was 10 , would that have happened with any other language ?
I doubt it .
Things like lack of scoping makes the easy things easier and the hard things harder .
The point is n't to learn everything from your first language , the point is to get started and interested at all .
Moving to DOS was sorta ok , but moving to Windows killed my interest .
C/C + + was just horribly complicated , I remember trying to get up a window in the Win32 API and it was like wtf , how hard can this be ?
MFC was even worse , Java ( really early java , on hardware of the time ) was slow and unresponsive as fuck , Javascript was a toy language for websites and never really like Pascal or VB much either .
I did n't regain my interest in programming until I went with C + + /Qt , or maybe more Qt than C + + really .
QMainWindow * mw = new QMainWindow ( ) , mw- &gt; show ( ) .
The hard stuff is still hard , but I very very rarely find I write " overhead " code that I should n't have to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but it was BASIC.
And the expectations were so low.
"10 PRINT "Hello, World!
", "20 GOTO 10" and it started doing something.
The programming manual was well worn by the time I was 10, would that have happened with any other language?
I doubt it.
Things like lack of scoping makes the easy things easier and the hard things harder.
The point isn't to learn everything from your first language, the point is to get started and interested at all.
Moving to DOS was sorta ok, but moving to Windows killed my interest.
C/C++ was just horribly complicated, I remember trying to get up a window in the Win32 API and it was like wtf, how hard can this be?
MFC was even worse, Java (really early java, on hardware of the time) was slow and unresponsive as fuck, Javascript was a toy language for websites and never really like Pascal or VB much either.
I didn't regain my interest in programming until I went with C++/Qt, or maybe more Qt than C++ really.
QMainWindow *mw = new QMainWindow(), mw-&gt;show().
The hard stuff is still hard, but I very very rarely find I write "overhead" code that I shouldn't have to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428962</id>
	<title>BASIC is good for teaching would-be gurus</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1268249460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because, with its gotos and numbered code satements, it made pretty explicit that the computer<br>was implementing a "program counter" or "program current-instruction pointer" which was advancing<br>step-by-step through the program and being redirected to another block of code using a jump of some<br>kind.</p><p>Someone who is going to become an excellent programmer will take that, and discover for themselves<br>that always structuring ifs with gotos as a standard pattern in an if then else organization makes their<br>programs easier to write and to maintain and understand.</p><p>They will also learn to create standard patterns for looping while checking a condition, and<br>for creating distinct subroutines with structured ways of going to them and returning, including<br>creating extra variables which are used to pass arguments into a subroutine.</p><p>Thus you don't just learn structured programming. You learn what aspects are important about it<br>(the patterning of control flow, localization of similar purpose code etc.) and you learn the mechanics<br>of how a compiler is going to make it work i.e. what it will do under the hood.</p><p>Great stuff.</p><p>I'd put it this way.<br>-Bad programmers will be outed sooner by starting with Basic.<br>-Excellent programmers will become even better and wiser faster by starting with Basic and<br>climbing up out of it.<br>They will also have a quick straightforward path from Basic down to understanding assembly code and<br>ways and advantages of structuring it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because , with its gotos and numbered code satements , it made pretty explicit that the computerwas implementing a " program counter " or " program current-instruction pointer " which was advancingstep-by-step through the program and being redirected to another block of code using a jump of somekind.Someone who is going to become an excellent programmer will take that , and discover for themselvesthat always structuring ifs with gotos as a standard pattern in an if then else organization makes theirprograms easier to write and to maintain and understand.They will also learn to create standard patterns for looping while checking a condition , andfor creating distinct subroutines with structured ways of going to them and returning , includingcreating extra variables which are used to pass arguments into a subroutine.Thus you do n't just learn structured programming .
You learn what aspects are important about it ( the patterning of control flow , localization of similar purpose code etc .
) and you learn the mechanicsof how a compiler is going to make it work i.e .
what it will do under the hood.Great stuff.I 'd put it this way.-Bad programmers will be outed sooner by starting with Basic.-Excellent programmers will become even better and wiser faster by starting with Basic andclimbing up out of it.They will also have a quick straightforward path from Basic down to understanding assembly code andways and advantages of structuring it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because, with its gotos and numbered code satements, it made pretty explicit that the computerwas implementing a "program counter" or "program current-instruction pointer" which was advancingstep-by-step through the program and being redirected to another block of code using a jump of somekind.Someone who is going to become an excellent programmer will take that, and discover for themselvesthat always structuring ifs with gotos as a standard pattern in an if then else organization makes theirprograms easier to write and to maintain and understand.They will also learn to create standard patterns for looping while checking a condition, andfor creating distinct subroutines with structured ways of going to them and returning, includingcreating extra variables which are used to pass arguments into a subroutine.Thus you don't just learn structured programming.
You learn what aspects are important about it(the patterning of control flow, localization of similar purpose code etc.
) and you learn the mechanicsof how a compiler is going to make it work i.e.
what it will do under the hood.Great stuff.I'd put it this way.-Bad programmers will be outed sooner by starting with Basic.-Excellent programmers will become even better and wiser faster by starting with Basic andclimbing up out of it.They will also have a quick straightforward path from Basic down to understanding assembly code andways and advantages of structuring it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426100</id>
	<title>Is BASIC less structured than other languages?</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1268236500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I get the feeling that a lot of posters think of BASIC as 1964 Dartmouth BASIC, or GW-BASIC. But is that entirely fair? Various versions of BASIC have, pretty much, abandoned the "GOTO LINE NUMBER" model decades ago. BASIC may still support the GOTO statement, but I think most languages have some form of "goto." There have also been compiled versions of BASIC for several decades.</p><p>BASIC was not originally designed to be an object-oriented language. But, neither was C, and C led to C++, Objective-C, and Java. Other languages not originally designed to be object oriented include: Perl, PHP, Pascal, and - I'm sure - several others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get the feeling that a lot of posters think of BASIC as 1964 Dartmouth BASIC , or GW-BASIC .
But is that entirely fair ?
Various versions of BASIC have , pretty much , abandoned the " GOTO LINE NUMBER " model decades ago .
BASIC may still support the GOTO statement , but I think most languages have some form of " goto .
" There have also been compiled versions of BASIC for several decades.BASIC was not originally designed to be an object-oriented language .
But , neither was C , and C led to C + + , Objective-C , and Java .
Other languages not originally designed to be object oriented include : Perl , PHP , Pascal , and - I 'm sure - several others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get the feeling that a lot of posters think of BASIC as 1964 Dartmouth BASIC, or GW-BASIC.
But is that entirely fair?
Various versions of BASIC have, pretty much, abandoned the "GOTO LINE NUMBER" model decades ago.
BASIC may still support the GOTO statement, but I think most languages have some form of "goto.
" There have also been compiled versions of BASIC for several decades.BASIC was not originally designed to be an object-oriented language.
But, neither was C, and C led to C++, Objective-C, and Java.
Other languages not originally designed to be object oriented include: Perl, PHP, Pascal, and - I'm sure - several others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425254</id>
	<title>The value of hitting the metal</title>
	<author>yelvington</author>
	<datestamp>1268232120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eons ago, I took a computer science course for nontechnical majors at the University of Illinois taught by Daniel Slotnick, creator of the Illiac-IV and a pioneer of parallel computation. He made us write code in binary for a theoretical machine. On paper.</p><p>That is the worst possible way to create a computer program of significant complexity, with all the spaghetti-code flaws of the original Beginner's All-Purpose Simplified Instruction Code (BASIC) plus many of its own, especially mind-breaking tedium. I utterly hated it, and actually took an F on that exercise, but I got the point, completely. I had a sudden deep respect for assemblers and especially macro assemblers.</p><p>Too many modern programmers have no real idea how computers work, or even how languages work, or why they're built the way they are to solve what kind of problems. Getting under the hood changes all of that. When I moved on to C, I understood how it functioned ("really a preprocessor for PDP-11 assembly language").</p><p>I don't know whether the cited blogger is right when he says this sort of thing makes your brain stronger. I do know that it prepared me to understand viscerally the significance of higher-level languages and advances in the art.</p><p>I did dabble a bit in BASIC along the way -- on a CDC Cyber-9000 and a Commodore VIC-20. The latter made me understand that all of this can be fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eons ago , I took a computer science course for nontechnical majors at the University of Illinois taught by Daniel Slotnick , creator of the Illiac-IV and a pioneer of parallel computation .
He made us write code in binary for a theoretical machine .
On paper.That is the worst possible way to create a computer program of significant complexity , with all the spaghetti-code flaws of the original Beginner 's All-Purpose Simplified Instruction Code ( BASIC ) plus many of its own , especially mind-breaking tedium .
I utterly hated it , and actually took an F on that exercise , but I got the point , completely .
I had a sudden deep respect for assemblers and especially macro assemblers.Too many modern programmers have no real idea how computers work , or even how languages work , or why they 're built the way they are to solve what kind of problems .
Getting under the hood changes all of that .
When I moved on to C , I understood how it functioned ( " really a preprocessor for PDP-11 assembly language " ) .I do n't know whether the cited blogger is right when he says this sort of thing makes your brain stronger .
I do know that it prepared me to understand viscerally the significance of higher-level languages and advances in the art.I did dabble a bit in BASIC along the way -- on a CDC Cyber-9000 and a Commodore VIC-20 .
The latter made me understand that all of this can be fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eons ago, I took a computer science course for nontechnical majors at the University of Illinois taught by Daniel Slotnick, creator of the Illiac-IV and a pioneer of parallel computation.
He made us write code in binary for a theoretical machine.
On paper.That is the worst possible way to create a computer program of significant complexity, with all the spaghetti-code flaws of the original Beginner's All-Purpose Simplified Instruction Code (BASIC) plus many of its own, especially mind-breaking tedium.
I utterly hated it, and actually took an F on that exercise, but I got the point, completely.
I had a sudden deep respect for assemblers and especially macro assemblers.Too many modern programmers have no real idea how computers work, or even how languages work, or why they're built the way they are to solve what kind of problems.
Getting under the hood changes all of that.
When I moved on to C, I understood how it functioned ("really a preprocessor for PDP-11 assembly language").I don't know whether the cited blogger is right when he says this sort of thing makes your brain stronger.
I do know that it prepared me to understand viscerally the significance of higher-level languages and advances in the art.I did dabble a bit in BASIC along the way -- on a CDC Cyber-9000 and a Commodore VIC-20.
The latter made me understand that all of this can be fun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31433042</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is great for kids</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268227740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, Python also has some very nasty warts, like the implicit creation of variables upon first use (so typos mean subtle bugs!) and the frankly bizarre scoping rules that go with it.</p><p>Even Visual Basic has "Option Explicit".  Even Perl has "use strict".  Python would do well to copy them, if it wants to be the best option for a didactic language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , Python also has some very nasty warts , like the implicit creation of variables upon first use ( so typos mean subtle bugs !
) and the frankly bizarre scoping rules that go with it.Even Visual Basic has " Option Explicit " .
Even Perl has " use strict " .
Python would do well to copy them , if it wants to be the best option for a didactic language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, Python also has some very nasty warts, like the implicit creation of variables upon first use (so typos mean subtle bugs!
) and the frankly bizarre scoping rules that go with it.Even Visual Basic has "Option Explicit".
Even Perl has "use strict".
Python would do well to copy them, if it wants to be the best option for a didactic language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423940</id>
	<title>I'd guess there's a critical period &amp; an attit</title>
	<author>weston</author>
	<datestamp>1268212680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the author is mostly on. He's aware Dijkstra was exaggerating for effect, but also completely correct... if you started programming in the early home computing era, you probably started with a BASIC. I was lucky enough to get some varied exposure earlier to some other languages (LOGO and some shallow assembly), but until I was 15, it was pretty much Basic.</p><p>And none of my programming habits now resemble anything close to the BASIC I wrote in when I was that age. Except, occasionally, for the rare cases where global state seems to make sense, and even then, I try to namespace things in one way or another. But by and large, I picked up structured programming, I picked up object-oriented programming, I picked up logic programming, and I'm learning to enjoy functional programming.</p><p>I will say... there was a time when I was probably close to being "ruined." It was when I was learning C++, and I only really had Pascal, basic C, and Basic under my belt. And I had a pretty solidly structured-imperative mindset, and really hadn't seen any other way of doing things. C++ married data structures and methods in an interesting way, but it didn't seem like more than a stylistic practice to me. I was pretty sure most languages were alike, you just had syntax and typing differences.</p><p>But there was one thing: I'd had to learn Prolog for a very specific job. We were teaching it to high school students in a CS summercamp I worked at for a few years. The first year, I just thought "Man, this is weird," more or less got through all the exercises, and left it behind, and did what most people do: dismiss it as an odd research toy. The second year, I thought "this is weird, but interesting." The third year, I thought "Wow. There are all kinds of intriguing ideas here."</p><p>And there are, and I still think it could stand to see more usage in mainstream software, but more importantly, I think I'm pretty lucky I got repeated exposure to a language that forced me to think differently before I got very far into actually working in the software industry.</p><p>Because I now think there's either a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical\_period" title="wikipedia.org">critical period</a> [wikipedia.org] (or possibly, at a minimum, a critical attitude of some kind) after which a lot of programmers tend to lose either the humility or the curiosity that drives people to think about different programming constructs and habits. I think if a programmer has been minimally exposed before they reach it, they'll keep <em>just enough</em> of one or both of those attributes that they'll be interested in what they don't already know, rather than arriving at the point where <a href="http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/04/lisp-is-not-acceptable-lisp.html" title="blogspot.com">"they've already learned the last programming language they'll ever need."</a> [blogspot.com]</p><p>And if they don't get so exposed, they become <a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html" title="paulgraham.com">Blub programmers</a> [paulgraham.com], where generally <tt>$Blub</tt> is some industry-leading language that does enough you don't easily bump up against tasks that are near impossible in it.</p><p>To tie this back in with a point I think the author missed, I suspect that some of the difficulties with Basic are actually part of the reason why it didn't end up ruining more programmers. Almost everybody who really came to grips with it as a tool probably realized that it <em>couldn't</em> possibly be the last programming language you'd ever need (if it weren't enough that any effort to look into working as a programmer revealed that Basic was clearly not the strongest payroll ticket).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the author is mostly on .
He 's aware Dijkstra was exaggerating for effect , but also completely correct... if you started programming in the early home computing era , you probably started with a BASIC .
I was lucky enough to get some varied exposure earlier to some other languages ( LOGO and some shallow assembly ) , but until I was 15 , it was pretty much Basic.And none of my programming habits now resemble anything close to the BASIC I wrote in when I was that age .
Except , occasionally , for the rare cases where global state seems to make sense , and even then , I try to namespace things in one way or another .
But by and large , I picked up structured programming , I picked up object-oriented programming , I picked up logic programming , and I 'm learning to enjoy functional programming.I will say... there was a time when I was probably close to being " ruined .
" It was when I was learning C + + , and I only really had Pascal , basic C , and Basic under my belt .
And I had a pretty solidly structured-imperative mindset , and really had n't seen any other way of doing things .
C + + married data structures and methods in an interesting way , but it did n't seem like more than a stylistic practice to me .
I was pretty sure most languages were alike , you just had syntax and typing differences.But there was one thing : I 'd had to learn Prolog for a very specific job .
We were teaching it to high school students in a CS summercamp I worked at for a few years .
The first year , I just thought " Man , this is weird , " more or less got through all the exercises , and left it behind , and did what most people do : dismiss it as an odd research toy .
The second year , I thought " this is weird , but interesting .
" The third year , I thought " Wow .
There are all kinds of intriguing ideas here .
" And there are , and I still think it could stand to see more usage in mainstream software , but more importantly , I think I 'm pretty lucky I got repeated exposure to a language that forced me to think differently before I got very far into actually working in the software industry.Because I now think there 's either a critical period [ wikipedia.org ] ( or possibly , at a minimum , a critical attitude of some kind ) after which a lot of programmers tend to lose either the humility or the curiosity that drives people to think about different programming constructs and habits .
I think if a programmer has been minimally exposed before they reach it , they 'll keep just enough of one or both of those attributes that they 'll be interested in what they do n't already know , rather than arriving at the point where " they 've already learned the last programming language they 'll ever need .
" [ blogspot.com ] And if they do n't get so exposed , they become Blub programmers [ paulgraham.com ] , where generally $ Blub is some industry-leading language that does enough you do n't easily bump up against tasks that are near impossible in it.To tie this back in with a point I think the author missed , I suspect that some of the difficulties with Basic are actually part of the reason why it did n't end up ruining more programmers .
Almost everybody who really came to grips with it as a tool probably realized that it could n't possibly be the last programming language you 'd ever need ( if it were n't enough that any effort to look into working as a programmer revealed that Basic was clearly not the strongest payroll ticket ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the author is mostly on.
He's aware Dijkstra was exaggerating for effect, but also completely correct... if you started programming in the early home computing era, you probably started with a BASIC.
I was lucky enough to get some varied exposure earlier to some other languages (LOGO and some shallow assembly), but until I was 15, it was pretty much Basic.And none of my programming habits now resemble anything close to the BASIC I wrote in when I was that age.
Except, occasionally, for the rare cases where global state seems to make sense, and even then, I try to namespace things in one way or another.
But by and large, I picked up structured programming, I picked up object-oriented programming, I picked up logic programming, and I'm learning to enjoy functional programming.I will say... there was a time when I was probably close to being "ruined.
" It was when I was learning C++, and I only really had Pascal, basic C, and Basic under my belt.
And I had a pretty solidly structured-imperative mindset, and really hadn't seen any other way of doing things.
C++ married data structures and methods in an interesting way, but it didn't seem like more than a stylistic practice to me.
I was pretty sure most languages were alike, you just had syntax and typing differences.But there was one thing: I'd had to learn Prolog for a very specific job.
We were teaching it to high school students in a CS summercamp I worked at for a few years.
The first year, I just thought "Man, this is weird," more or less got through all the exercises, and left it behind, and did what most people do: dismiss it as an odd research toy.
The second year, I thought "this is weird, but interesting.
" The third year, I thought "Wow.
There are all kinds of intriguing ideas here.
"And there are, and I still think it could stand to see more usage in mainstream software, but more importantly, I think I'm pretty lucky I got repeated exposure to a language that forced me to think differently before I got very far into actually working in the software industry.Because I now think there's either a critical period [wikipedia.org] (or possibly, at a minimum, a critical attitude of some kind) after which a lot of programmers tend to lose either the humility or the curiosity that drives people to think about different programming constructs and habits.
I think if a programmer has been minimally exposed before they reach it, they'll keep just enough of one or both of those attributes that they'll be interested in what they don't already know, rather than arriving at the point where "they've already learned the last programming language they'll ever need.
" [blogspot.com]And if they don't get so exposed, they become Blub programmers [paulgraham.com], where generally $Blub is some industry-leading language that does enough you don't easily bump up against tasks that are near impossible in it.To tie this back in with a point I think the author missed, I suspect that some of the difficulties with Basic are actually part of the reason why it didn't end up ruining more programmers.
Almost everybody who really came to grips with it as a tool probably realized that it couldn't possibly be the last programming language you'd ever need (if it weren't enough that any effort to look into working as a programmer revealed that Basic was clearly not the strongest payroll ticket).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424582</id>
	<title>Re:Dijkstra ? Legend ?</title>
	<author>Edmund Blackadder</author>
	<datestamp>1268222940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He may have been self declared legend, but he was declared a legend by many other people as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He may have been self declared legend , but he was declared a legend by many other people as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He may have been self declared legend, but he was declared a legend by many other people as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423714</id>
	<title>BASIC is great for kids</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268253420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree with the premise that BASIC teaches bad habits.  I stick with the old adage a bad workman blames his tools.  BASIC teaches kids (like I was over 30 years ago) from the ages of 5-6 how to put together simple logic, and gives them the very basics of languages constructs like variables, loops, sub routines, etc. without them having to grasp structures, classes, polymorphism, OO, etc. that a lot of grown ups that have been involved with writing code for quite some time can have issues with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree with the premise that BASIC teaches bad habits .
I stick with the old adage a bad workman blames his tools .
BASIC teaches kids ( like I was over 30 years ago ) from the ages of 5-6 how to put together simple logic , and gives them the very basics of languages constructs like variables , loops , sub routines , etc .
without them having to grasp structures , classes , polymorphism , OO , etc .
that a lot of grown ups that have been involved with writing code for quite some time can have issues with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree with the premise that BASIC teaches bad habits.
I stick with the old adage a bad workman blames his tools.
BASIC teaches kids (like I was over 30 years ago) from the ages of 5-6 how to put together simple logic, and gives them the very basics of languages constructs like variables, loops, sub routines, etc.
without them having to grasp structures, classes, polymorphism, OO, etc.
that a lot of grown ups that have been involved with writing code for quite some time can have issues with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423816</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268254620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The irony is that under the covers, it's all done with jump instructions anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The irony is that under the covers , it 's all done with jump instructions anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The irony is that under the covers, it's all done with jump instructions anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425134</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is irrelevant</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1268231220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, I still think its best not to start off with anything other than something really simple. The point is not that you get to learn OO or web services or whatever, but that you get it to work immediately, with interactive debugging. I'd even go so far to say you should learn a scripting language (like php or python), but they tend to be too web-centric and not-so-easily debugged.</p><p>Hmm, that said, there is a PHP debugger/IDE. Perhaps that would be best to start with.</p><p>Then, once you have the basics of programming in you, you can branch out to new stuff. But its important to realise that what you or I know, the 10 year old newbie to programming doesn't have a clue about. He has to learn the stuff we've forgotten to take for granted.</p><p>You could start with Pascal as the 2nd language, and extend yourself to Modula-2 as the third, but you'd probably be better off learning C as the 2nd, and C++ as the 3rd.</p><p>BTW. today OO isn't so important - its all Web Services. Oh sorry, Cloud services. Oh sorry, the *next* big thing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I still think its best not to start off with anything other than something really simple .
The point is not that you get to learn OO or web services or whatever , but that you get it to work immediately , with interactive debugging .
I 'd even go so far to say you should learn a scripting language ( like php or python ) , but they tend to be too web-centric and not-so-easily debugged.Hmm , that said , there is a PHP debugger/IDE .
Perhaps that would be best to start with.Then , once you have the basics of programming in you , you can branch out to new stuff .
But its important to realise that what you or I know , the 10 year old newbie to programming does n't have a clue about .
He has to learn the stuff we 've forgotten to take for granted.You could start with Pascal as the 2nd language , and extend yourself to Modula-2 as the third , but you 'd probably be better off learning C as the 2nd , and C + + as the 3rd.BTW .
today OO is n't so important - its all Web Services .
Oh sorry , Cloud services .
Oh sorry , the * next * big thing ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I still think its best not to start off with anything other than something really simple.
The point is not that you get to learn OO or web services or whatever, but that you get it to work immediately, with interactive debugging.
I'd even go so far to say you should learn a scripting language (like php or python), but they tend to be too web-centric and not-so-easily debugged.Hmm, that said, there is a PHP debugger/IDE.
Perhaps that would be best to start with.Then, once you have the basics of programming in you, you can branch out to new stuff.
But its important to realise that what you or I know, the 10 year old newbie to programming doesn't have a clue about.
He has to learn the stuff we've forgotten to take for granted.You could start with Pascal as the 2nd language, and extend yourself to Modula-2 as the third, but you'd probably be better off learning C as the 2nd, and C++ as the 3rd.BTW.
today OO isn't so important - its all Web Services.
Oh sorry, Cloud services.
Oh sorry, the *next* big thing ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424128</id>
	<title>Re:Good programmers aren't easily ruined</title>
	<author>rsidd</author>
	<datestamp>1268215500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for the link.  However, I'm not sure you read beyond the title.  On page 2, Knuth foresees two types of reactions based on reading the title alone, and yours sounds the first type.  In fact Knuth does not disagree with Dijkstra, and he quotes Dijkstra to show that Dijkstra was not dogmatic about GOTO either.  Knuth's purpose is to explore where GOTO has a place and where it is better to eliminate it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the link .
However , I 'm not sure you read beyond the title .
On page 2 , Knuth foresees two types of reactions based on reading the title alone , and yours sounds the first type .
In fact Knuth does not disagree with Dijkstra , and he quotes Dijkstra to show that Dijkstra was not dogmatic about GOTO either .
Knuth 's purpose is to explore where GOTO has a place and where it is better to eliminate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the link.
However, I'm not sure you read beyond the title.
On page 2, Knuth foresees two types of reactions based on reading the title alone, and yours sounds the first type.
In fact Knuth does not disagree with Dijkstra, and he quotes Dijkstra to show that Dijkstra was not dogmatic about GOTO either.
Knuth's purpose is to explore where GOTO has a place and where it is better to eliminate it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427536</id>
	<title>Re:It's not the language, it's the teacher</title>
	<author>molo</author>
	<datestamp>1268242740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi, I'm trying to learn Morse code (been listening to ARRL CDs and downloadable courses from hams), but its been slow going.  How would you suggest that I proceed?</p><p>Thanks.<br>-molo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , I 'm trying to learn Morse code ( been listening to ARRL CDs and downloadable courses from hams ) , but its been slow going .
How would you suggest that I proceed ? Thanks.-molo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi, I'm trying to learn Morse code (been listening to ARRL CDs and downloadable courses from hams), but its been slow going.
How would you suggest that I proceed?Thanks.-molo</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426148</id>
	<title>Re:It's not the language, it's the teacher</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268236680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the person, not the language or teacher.</p><p>I taught myself TI 99/4A Basic and Extended Basic, also Apple II Basic.  I could program circles around my instructor in high-school, and actually subbed for him when he was out (yes they had a real teacher handle discipline, but I taught the class).</p><p>By the time I took the high school programming class, I'd been a programmer for 3 years and knew all kinds of tricks to shorten code, speed things up, better algorithms to handle searches and sorts.    The instructor would write 10 to 15 lines of code to do something, then usually after everyone would get done with the lab work, I'd go up and write 3 lines of code that did the same thing, faster, smaller, and in my mind, easier to use.</p><p>Attitude and aptitude will get you further than any instructor or course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the person , not the language or teacher.I taught myself TI 99/4A Basic and Extended Basic , also Apple II Basic .
I could program circles around my instructor in high-school , and actually subbed for him when he was out ( yes they had a real teacher handle discipline , but I taught the class ) .By the time I took the high school programming class , I 'd been a programmer for 3 years and knew all kinds of tricks to shorten code , speed things up , better algorithms to handle searches and sorts .
The instructor would write 10 to 15 lines of code to do something , then usually after everyone would get done with the lab work , I 'd go up and write 3 lines of code that did the same thing , faster , smaller , and in my mind , easier to use.Attitude and aptitude will get you further than any instructor or course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the person, not the language or teacher.I taught myself TI 99/4A Basic and Extended Basic, also Apple II Basic.
I could program circles around my instructor in high-school, and actually subbed for him when he was out (yes they had a real teacher handle discipline, but I taught the class).By the time I took the high school programming class, I'd been a programmer for 3 years and knew all kinds of tricks to shorten code, speed things up, better algorithms to handle searches and sorts.
The instructor would write 10 to 15 lines of code to do something, then usually after everyone would get done with the lab work, I'd go up and write 3 lines of code that did the same thing, faster, smaller, and in my mind, easier to use.Attitude and aptitude will get you further than any instructor or course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423738</id>
	<title>Simple, but genuine rewards</title>
	<author>zr-rifle</author>
	<datestamp>1268253660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I learned BASIC on a Commodore Vic-20 when I was about 6. The big problem with that flavor of BASIC was its shallowness: it didn't reward elegant solutions to programming problems and it was very easy to hit the performance limit. I never really managed to build anything more complex than text adventures and very simple arcade games. Still, the BASIC prompt was the very first thing you saw when switching on the micro so you were naturally attracted to experimenting with it, assisted by handbook that was included in the box. The prompt rewarded curiosity, especially when you started to enter those seemingly random values for PEEKS and POKES. Nowadays, on Windows machines, the prompt is hidden away from sight and there's hardly any mention of a programming or scripting language anywhere in the GUI.

I can't say that learning BASIC made me a better or worse programmer, but that's what got me interested in computing in the first place: those simple but oh-so-thrilling rewards of getting the machine to do what you want it to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I learned BASIC on a Commodore Vic-20 when I was about 6 .
The big problem with that flavor of BASIC was its shallowness : it did n't reward elegant solutions to programming problems and it was very easy to hit the performance limit .
I never really managed to build anything more complex than text adventures and very simple arcade games .
Still , the BASIC prompt was the very first thing you saw when switching on the micro so you were naturally attracted to experimenting with it , assisted by handbook that was included in the box .
The prompt rewarded curiosity , especially when you started to enter those seemingly random values for PEEKS and POKES .
Nowadays , on Windows machines , the prompt is hidden away from sight and there 's hardly any mention of a programming or scripting language anywhere in the GUI .
I ca n't say that learning BASIC made me a better or worse programmer , but that 's what got me interested in computing in the first place : those simple but oh-so-thrilling rewards of getting the machine to do what you want it to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I learned BASIC on a Commodore Vic-20 when I was about 6.
The big problem with that flavor of BASIC was its shallowness: it didn't reward elegant solutions to programming problems and it was very easy to hit the performance limit.
I never really managed to build anything more complex than text adventures and very simple arcade games.
Still, the BASIC prompt was the very first thing you saw when switching on the micro so you were naturally attracted to experimenting with it, assisted by handbook that was included in the box.
The prompt rewarded curiosity, especially when you started to enter those seemingly random values for PEEKS and POKES.
Nowadays, on Windows machines, the prompt is hidden away from sight and there's hardly any mention of a programming or scripting language anywhere in the GUI.
I can't say that learning BASIC made me a better or worse programmer, but that's what got me interested in computing in the first place: those simple but oh-so-thrilling rewards of getting the machine to do what you want it to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424114</id>
	<title>Re:BASIC is great for kids</title>
	<author>badran</author>
	<datestamp>1268215380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. It is the perfect age. A programming Language is very similar to a Spoken Language, and kids can grasp these concepts faster than adults.</p><p>If you learn how to speak to a PC at that age, then your golden....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
It is the perfect age .
A programming Language is very similar to a Spoken Language , and kids can grasp these concepts faster than adults.If you learn how to speak to a PC at that age , then your golden... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
It is the perfect age.
A programming Language is very similar to a Spoken Language, and kids can grasp these concepts faster than adults.If you learn how to speak to a PC at that age, then your golden....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31533336</id>
	<title>Re:Bah!</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1268938620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You set up two arrays. The first array contains your data element, the second array contains the index to the next element in the list at the same index as the data element in the first array.
<p>
The next logical question would be "Why would you ever need to know that?!" It's the sort of thing that might come in handy if you ever have to bust out the assembly language, though I think your options for structuring data in that language are more flexible than they were in BASIC. Also, sometimes a job will constrain you to a certain limited language. Probably not BASIC, though I could see being stuck with COBOL or something equally obnoxious. It is occasionally handy to know how to work within the limits of a brain-dead language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You set up two arrays .
The first array contains your data element , the second array contains the index to the next element in the list at the same index as the data element in the first array .
The next logical question would be " Why would you ever need to know that ? !
" It 's the sort of thing that might come in handy if you ever have to bust out the assembly language , though I think your options for structuring data in that language are more flexible than they were in BASIC .
Also , sometimes a job will constrain you to a certain limited language .
Probably not BASIC , though I could see being stuck with COBOL or something equally obnoxious .
It is occasionally handy to know how to work within the limits of a brain-dead language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You set up two arrays.
The first array contains your data element, the second array contains the index to the next element in the list at the same index as the data element in the first array.
The next logical question would be "Why would you ever need to know that?!
" It's the sort of thing that might come in handy if you ever have to bust out the assembly language, though I think your options for structuring data in that language are more flexible than they were in BASIC.
Also, sometimes a job will constrain you to a certain limited language.
Probably not BASIC, though I could see being stuck with COBOL or something equally obnoxious.
It is occasionally handy to know how to work within the limits of a brain-dead language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31435006</id>
	<title>language and thought</title>
	<author>mangodhamma</author>
	<datestamp>1268249280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You might as well say that Johnny can't be a poet because his first language was German not English. There's a relationship between language and thought but they are not the same. A good programmer is a good thinker - of a particular kind. The language he/she uses to express those thoughts is almost (but not entirely) irrelevant. For example, I can express myself more fluently Thai than I can in Khmer, even even though I am equally skilled in both. And while I am not a programmer, I cherish my first experience learning BASIC because it gave me an insight into the world of programming that has been invaluable to me in my work as a writer working with scientists and  IT specialists. So three cheers for BASIC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You might as well say that Johnny ca n't be a poet because his first language was German not English .
There 's a relationship between language and thought but they are not the same .
A good programmer is a good thinker - of a particular kind .
The language he/she uses to express those thoughts is almost ( but not entirely ) irrelevant .
For example , I can express myself more fluently Thai than I can in Khmer , even even though I am equally skilled in both .
And while I am not a programmer , I cherish my first experience learning BASIC because it gave me an insight into the world of programming that has been invaluable to me in my work as a writer working with scientists and IT specialists .
So three cheers for BASIC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might as well say that Johnny can't be a poet because his first language was German not English.
There's a relationship between language and thought but they are not the same.
A good programmer is a good thinker - of a particular kind.
The language he/she uses to express those thoughts is almost (but not entirely) irrelevant.
For example, I can express myself more fluently Thai than I can in Khmer, even even though I am equally skilled in both.
And while I am not a programmer, I cherish my first experience learning BASIC because it gave me an insight into the world of programming that has been invaluable to me in my work as a writer working with scientists and  IT specialists.
So three cheers for BASIC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31444078</id>
	<title>Bad coding does not discriminate</title>
	<author>Halotron1</author>
	<datestamp>1268301420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or as Atwood put it: <a href="http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2005/04/you-can-write-fortran-in-any-language.html" title="codinghorror.com" rel="nofollow">You can write fortran in any language</a> [codinghorror.com]</p><p>Excellent and horrible coders exist no matter what language you choose.</p><p>The logic that a single language can spoil your mind would only lead to you experiencing fewer languages in order to avoid damaging your precious brain!</p><p>I'd wager that most of the top programmers in the world have written significant amounts of code in at least 10 different languages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or as Atwood put it : You can write fortran in any language [ codinghorror.com ] Excellent and horrible coders exist no matter what language you choose.The logic that a single language can spoil your mind would only lead to you experiencing fewer languages in order to avoid damaging your precious brain ! I 'd wager that most of the top programmers in the world have written significant amounts of code in at least 10 different languages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or as Atwood put it: You can write fortran in any language [codinghorror.com]Excellent and horrible coders exist no matter what language you choose.The logic that a single language can spoil your mind would only lead to you experiencing fewer languages in order to avoid damaging your precious brain!I'd wager that most of the top programmers in the world have written significant amounts of code in at least 10 different languages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424702</id>
	<title>Re:Bah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268224860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can I quote you on that?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I quote you on that ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I quote you on that?
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423724</id>
	<title>Never got basic.</title>
	<author>OpenQL</author>
	<datestamp>1268253540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the name doesn't sit easy for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the name does n't sit easy for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the name doesn't sit easy for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426308</id>
	<title>God how I miss GOTO</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1268237400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every time I use Java I'm reminded just how much I miss the old GOTO statement. Java can take a program that would take ten lines to write in basic and turn it into a huge pain in the ass with multiple methods and nestled loops.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time I use Java I 'm reminded just how much I miss the old GOTO statement .
Java can take a program that would take ten lines to write in basic and turn it into a huge pain in the ass with multiple methods and nestled loops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time I use Java I'm reminded just how much I miss the old GOTO statement.
Java can take a program that would take ten lines to write in basic and turn it into a huge pain in the ass with multiple methods and nestled loops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31533336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31430062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31429496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31443946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31446186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31433042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31430208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31433758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31432264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_10_0348241_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31435062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31443946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31446186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31433758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31435062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428000
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423816
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427890
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424650
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424934
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424598
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428288
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426582
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423900
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428546
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31430208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31430062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31433042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31427536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424360
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424728
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424584
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425276
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31432264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425080
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31429496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424880
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31425134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31428776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31533336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_10_0348241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31423902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31426372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_10_0348241.31424582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
