Re: use of backward single quote in procedure names

On Mar 12, 11:41 am, Rob Kendrick <n...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
No; users don't care about which version of BBC BASIC they have, only
that they can run the applications they want to run.  They'd need a new
BBC BASIC runtime module to run the application they want to run

Yes, of course, and surely that's just as possible for RISC-OS as it
is for Windows? BBC BASIC for Windows creates standalone executables
that contain a crunched version of the BASIC program plus a run-time
engine to execute it (a cut-down copy of the interpreter). That's
essential to being able to distribute programs to other Windows users,
since most Windows computers don't have BBC BASIC installed!

RISC OS users have (understandably) developed the mind-set that a BBC
BASIC interpreter is somehow part of every machine. They think that
distributing a program written in BASIC implies distributing only the
source code. As you and Paul correctly point out, that's a recipe for
never being able to extend the language. If BBC BASIC is extended you
must treat it like any other language: you need the extended version
only on the machine(s) used to *develop* the software; when
distributing it to *users* you must ensure it comes with everything
needed to run on the target machine.

Did you not formally specify the language changes you implemented before
implementing them, then? If so, how could you have been sure your
changes wouldn't have involved much wider incompatibilities?

I'm quite certain that my language extensions were specified every bit
as "formally" as any other aspects of BBC BASIC have been, right back
to Sophie's original BASIC 1! If you seriously suggest a 'formal'
specification would have been useful in either implementing the
changes, or determining their degree of compatibility, then you're
being terribly naive (or mischievous) :-)

I seems quite alien to be to make changes to a programming language
without rigorously specifying it, so I assumed you already had this
information available.

I believe my design and implementation of the changes was pretty
'rigorous', and I take a great deal of care over any software I
write. That involves describing the changes in writing first,
certainly, and then thinking about them long and hard before actually
writing code, but a 'formal' specification that I could give to
somebody else? 'Fraid not!

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/
To reply by email change 'news' to my forename.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: use of backward single quote in procedure names
    ... BASIC interpreter is somehow part of every machine. ... distributing a program written in BASIC implies distributing only the ... never being able to extend the language. ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.programmer)
  • Re: [SLE] Developing a Real Time Data System
    ... The KBasic License is valid for both operating systems: Windows and Linux. ... Modern BASIC language ... chapters learning about the programming language. ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: Wholesome choice?
    ... all of those on my Windows box sitting on the Internet. ... week later it's discovered that the back door has been wide open all ... it had nothing to do with Microsoft. ... Or I can use a programming language invoked by my ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Theodore Adorno, a prophet of data systems design
    ... > Which is why I work in Windows because the language development is ... I concede that much work needs to be done in language development ... It is not just C and C programmers who have this pact. ... the ignition system has to do a lot more than help the car start. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Case sensitivity
    ... few years managers find fault with the current front-running language ... Astronomers don't give a damn about software fashion. ... the standard packages are error-free, but at least you're getting the ... Not Windows 3.1 sitting on DOS. ...
    (comp.lang.forth)