15 Aug
2001
15 Aug
'01
11:36 a.m.
I'd tend to agree, in general. However, I think
something like MIPS
assembly (such as that taught in CS courses at UIUC) might work well as a
"learners" language, and doesn't require knowing TOO much of the hardware
(aside from the registers / memory distinction, which could be taught using
a "file cabinet / cubbyholes" analogy).
Was the MIPS a true 3-address machine (or do I mean 3-operand?)? Or
am I thinking of the NS32000 family?
But, yeah, I'd say BASIC is still a pretty good
language to see if someone
can "get" programming -- provided that someone moves to a structured
language quickly if he or she wishes, instead of getting into bad
programming habits (as I did for a while).
I grudgingly agree.
Niklaus Wirth thought that BASIC hopelessly polluted a mind from
every being a good programmer. I, too, think that's harsh, probably
because I also started with (a superset of) BASIC, and wrote journal
articles for two years for The Cobb Group's Inside Microsoft BASIC
and Inside Quickbasic. And every time I think I've finally put it
behind me, it creeps back into my life. Most recently, TOPS-10 BASIC
running on a simulated DECSYSTEM-2020 (KS-10) (fixing MONPLY.BAS).
-dq