*info
Chris de Cordova
some of which do very much what I need ATM, and I want to find a
smiliar source of PC proglets cos that's what I need to use them on.
Specifically, I want something that drops splashes of colour around
that I can then drag, wiggle, twang and bounce,etc, with my mouse.
Lines or 'iron filings' would do.
But on a PC!
Is it possiblethat any ofthe creators of those might have reproduced
them for the dark side?
I have asked in several PC newsgroups but had no helpful responses,
and like Alex, don't know where else to ask. Any suggestions, please?
It usually seems to be the case with the sort of software I want/use
that it was available on Acorn years ago and is now becoming
available on PCs, with slightly more cartoony graphics.
Perhaps the *info type things will be the new PC vogue?
--
__ __
/ \ | _ ' , _| _ / \ _ _ _| _ _
| |/\ |/ /| / \ / | /_\ | / \|/ / | / \\ // |
\__/ | |/| |_/ _/ \_/|/\_, \__/ \_/| \_/|/\_/ \/ \_/|
Always borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back.
John Cartmell
Chris de Cordova <deco...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> Perhaps the *info type things will be the new PC vogue?
I thought the new vogue was RISC OS? PC=Windows is so yesterday ...
And I'm afraid that outside the *Info in Acorn User and the new *Info in
Qercus your question has to be seriously out of place in csa.misc. ;-(
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
Theo Markettos
> some of which do very much what I need ATM, and I want to find a
> smiliar source of PC proglets cos that's what I need to use them on.
Run your BBC BASIC V programs in Brandy? Brandy's DOS/Windows versions
support most of the BASIC V graphics commands.
Theo
Peter Naulls
pv <usenet...@segfault.co.uk> wrote:
> Erm, the beauty of *Info and RISC OS is that you CAN write whizzy little
> applications and demos in a few lines of code. This is pretty damn
> impossible on a PC - at least not without volumes of code and compilers etc.
You seem to be unfamiliar with Perl and bash.
> There IS a reason that some of us stay with RISC OS and don't defect to the
> dark side..... Ease of programming is one of the reasons!
Certain types of small applications, perhaps. But that comparision
doesn't really apply unless you really mean Windows, not "PC". In any
case, ease of programming is one of the things RISC OS can certainly
lack when it comes to larger applications - not just because people so
often insist on writing their own Wimp libraries - but because of the
lack of things a range of debugging tools (slowly improving now
finally), unsatisfactory memory protection (see my recent drobe article)
and lack of rapid prototyping tools for C/C++ applications.
--
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
RISC OS C Programming | http://www.riscos.info/c/
Chika
wrote:
> > There IS a reason that some of us stay with RISC OS and don't defect
> > to the dark side..... Ease of programming is one of the reasons!
> Certain types of small applications, perhaps. But that comparision
> doesn't really apply unless you really mean Windows, not "PC". In any
> case, ease of programming is one of the things RISC OS can certainly
> lack when it comes to larger applications - not just because people so
> often insist on writing their own Wimp libraries - but because of the
> lack of things a range of debugging tools (slowly improving now
> finally), unsatisfactory memory protection (see my recent drobe article)
> and lack of rapid prototyping tools for C/C++ applications.
I see both sides of the argument, having stepped away from programming
over the last few years. There is merit in both sides, though I would tend
to say that there is a great deal of difference between somebody that
writes in anger day after day to achieve a specific package and somebody
that writes small amounts of code to do something quickly.
It's the difference between, say, writing a quick shell script or BASIC
program to move a bit of code or muck about with a bit of data and writing
something more intense, say, for example, a browser.
You get the best of both worlds on a RISC OS machine, even with its
drawbacks on the high level side (which, you have to admit, is much better
than it once was). Low level scripting on a PC in Windows isn't anything
like as good as what you can achieve under a *nix shell or a BASIC
program.
It's a matter of perspective.
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx. - ROT13>
// \// Hitting Googlespammers with hyper-hammers!
... We all have failures. The question is, what do we do with them?
Peter Naulls
Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> In article <06b16a74...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org>
> wrote:
> > > There IS a reason that some of us stay with RISC OS and don't defect
> > > to the dark side..... Ease of programming is one of the reasons!
>
> > Certain types of small applications, perhaps. But that comparision
> > doesn't really apply unless you really mean Windows, not "PC". In any
> > case, ease of programming is one of the things RISC OS can certainly
> > lack when it comes to larger applications - not just because people so
> > often insist on writing their own Wimp libraries - but because of the
> > lack of things a range of debugging tools (slowly improving now
> > finally), unsatisfactory memory protection (see my recent drobe article)
> > and lack of rapid prototyping tools for C/C++ applications.
>
> I see both sides of the argument, having stepped away from programming
> over the last few years. There is merit in both sides, though I would tend
> to say that there is a great deal of difference between somebody that
> writes in anger day after day to achieve a specific package and somebody
> that writes small amounts of code to do something quickly.
I've at least implied development on three types of platforms and
several different issues, so your comments don't really follow.
> It's the difference between, say, writing a quick shell script or BASIC
> program to move a bit of code or muck about with a bit of data and writing
> something more intense, say, for example, a browser.
Which "it"? Again, this doesn't really follow. You're mentioning two
things at opposite ends of the complexity scale, so I'm not sure what
your point is.
> You get the best of both worlds on a RISC OS machine, even with its
> drawbacks on the high level side (which, you have to admit, is much better
> than it once was).
No, you don't - that was precisely my point. There are a great many
problems with RISC OS developmemt.
Please, if you're going to reply to this type of thing, can you think
things through a bit more, and present a cohesive argument?
Chika
wrote:
> In message <4d746bfe...@no.spam.here> Chika
> <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <06b16a74...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls
> > <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> > > > There IS a reason that some of us stay with RISC OS and don't
> > > > defect to the dark side..... Ease of programming is one of the
> > > > reasons!
> >
> > > Certain types of small applications, perhaps. But that comparision
> > > doesn't really apply unless you really mean Windows, not "PC". In
> > > any case, ease of programming is one of the things RISC OS can
> > > certainly lack when it comes to larger applications - not just
> > > because people so often insist on writing their own Wimp libraries -
> > > but because of the lack of things a range of debugging tools (slowly
> > > improving now finally), unsatisfactory memory protection (see my
> > > recent drobe article) and lack of rapid prototyping tools for C/C++
> > > applications.
> >
> > I see both sides of the argument, having stepped away from programming
> > over the last few years. There is merit in both sides, though I would
> > tend to say that there is a great deal of difference between somebody
> > that writes in anger day after day to achieve a specific package and
> > somebody that writes small amounts of code to do something quickly.
> I've at least implied development on three types of platforms and
> several different issues, so your comments don't really follow.
And that's the problem - you are too close to the beast. I know. I've been
there myself. I used to get frustrated at the lack of whatever
functionality I needed in whatever it was I was writing, normally because
I was doing something big and important, something that a quick patch or a
small bit of quick code wasn't enough for. I'm not impuning your
abilities, just saying that your perception is different to that of others
because of your needs and skills.
> > It's the difference between, say, writing a quick shell script or
> > BASIC program to move a bit of code or muck about with a bit of data
> > and writing something more intense, say, for example, a browser.
> Which "it"? Again, this doesn't really follow. You're mentioning two
> things at opposite ends of the complexity scale, so I'm not sure what
> your point is.
Again, that's because you haven't taken in the big picture; the difference
between a power programmer and somebody writing a quick bit of whatever
will get me out of trouble code. You are at one end of the scale, and you
can't see the other. It makes you good at what you do, but it also
obscures your view of what others need and do.
> > You get the best of both worlds on a RISC OS machine, even with its
> > drawbacks on the high level side (which, you have to admit, is much
> > better than it once was).
> No, you don't - that was precisely my point. There are a great many
> problems with RISC OS developmemt.
> Please, if you're going to reply to this type of thing, can you think
> things through a bit more, and present a cohesive argument?
I've presented it as cohesively as possible. If you can't grasp it, that
isn't my problem, and while I'll overlook the attempt at patronage, I will
say this.
Part of the problem with posting in this group over the last few years has
had as much to do with the lack of courtesy exhibited by some as the lack
of knowledge of others. I'll include myself in there as I know that I'm
not always the most courteous of posters and I certainly don't know
everything, but some of what passes for posting in the csa groups from
some folk that seem to have set themselves up as arbiters of the groups,
maybe of the future of RISC OS, has provoked much of the worst of the
insults and backbiting I have seen here.
Whilst I can appreciate the causes, I cannot excuse it. As I have said
already, there are worse places to post than csa, but that isn't a reason
for csa to descend to those levels either. I'm not about to point a finger
here but unless those folk in this group sort themselves out, stop being
impatient, patronising or short, learn a bit of patience and tolerance,
then all the FAQ's and guideline pages in the world won't save csa.
That's my opinion. Take it or leave it.
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx. - ROT13>
// \// Hitting Googlespammers with hyper-hammers!
... Our Standard: Exellence; Our Goal: Perfection; Reality: Murphy.
Peter Naulls
Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> In article <c9e36d74...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I've at least implied development on three types of platforms and
> > several different issues, so your comments don't really follow.
>
> And that's the problem - you are too close to the beast. I know. I've been
> there myself. I used to get frustrated at the lack of whatever
> functionality I needed in whatever it was I was writing, normally because
> I was doing something big and important, something that a quick patch or a
> small bit of quick code wasn't enough for. I'm not impuning your
> abilities, just saying that your perception is different to that of others
> because of your needs and skills.
I'm afraid this is complete rubbish. This is nothing to do with my
skills or my perception - which is much more complete than you'd like to
think. The problem is that you tried to debate something I said, but it
simply didn't follow. If you'd like to question my skills, please base
on it fact, rather than making up a fictional theory just to try and
boltser an argument which was ill-considered.
> > Which "it"? Again, this doesn't really follow. You're mentioning two
> > things at opposite ends of the complexity scale, so I'm not sure what
> > your point is.
>
> Again, that's because you haven't taken in the big picture; the difference
> between a power programmer and somebody writing a quick bit of whatever
> will get me out of trouble code. You are at one end of the scale, and you
> can't see the other. It makes you good at what you do, but it also
> obscures your view of what others need and do.
You're making this stuff up as you go along, aren't you?. Quite clearly
I _did_ consider exactly this aspect. That is precisely where my
comments came from.
> > Please, if you're going to reply to this type of thing, can you think
> > things through a bit more, and present a cohesive argument?
>
> I've presented it as cohesively as possible. If you can't grasp it, that
> isn't my problem, and while I'll overlook the attempt at patronage, I will
> say this.
But you haven't. And who's being patronising?
[snip stuff on courtesy]
Uh huh.
Chris de Cordova
> Theo
Thank you! I will try that.
--
__ __
/ \ | _ ' , _| _ / \ _ _ _| _ _
| |/\ |/ /| / \ / | /_\ | / \|/ / | / \\ // |
\__/ | |/| |_/ _/ \_/|/\_, \__/ \_/| \_/|/\_/ \/ \_/|
Dancing is a perpendicular expression of a horizontal desire.
Chris de Cordova
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> And I'm afraid that outside the *Info in Acorn User and the new
> *Info in Qercus your question has to be seriously out of place in
> csa.misc. ;-(
Yeah, I know! (said as in Andy in Lou and Andy)
But you never know - some of those original talents may still be here
and be able to point me inthe right direction, or may have
transferred their own material.
So I thought I'd ask.
--
__ __
/ \ | _ ' , _| _ / \ _ _ _| _ _
| |/\ |/ /| / \ / | /_\ | / \|/ / | / \\ // |
\__/ | |/| |_/ _/ \_/|/\_, \__/ \_/| \_/|/\_/ \/ \_/|
Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film.
Chika
wrote:
> In message <4d747123...@no.spam.here> Chika
> <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <c9e36d74...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls
> > <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I've at least implied development on three types of platforms and
> > > several different issues, so your comments don't really follow.
> >
> > And that's the problem - you are too close to the beast. I know. I've
> > been there myself. I used to get frustrated at the lack of whatever
> > functionality I needed in whatever it was I was writing, normally
> > because I was doing something big and important, something that a
> > quick patch or a small bit of quick code wasn't enough for. I'm not
> > impuning your abilities, just saying that your perception is different
> > to that of others because of your needs and skills.
> I'm afraid this is complete rubbish. This is nothing to do with my
> skills or my perception - which is much more complete than you'd like to
> think. The problem is that you tried to debate something I said, but it
> simply didn't follow. If you'd like to question my skills, please base
> on it fact, rather than making up a fictional theory just to try and
> boltser an argument which was ill-considered.
Sorry if you feel that it is rubbish, but it's all completely true. I
don't expect you to understand it or see the reason behind it, for the
very reason that I said it. Dismissing it makes no difference.
> But you haven't. And who's being patronising?
You. And I don't believe I am the first to point it out, either.
> [snip stuff on courtesy]
> Uh huh.
Exactly.
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx. - ROT13>
// \// Hitting Googlespammers with hyper-hammers!
... Minds, like parachutes, work only when open.
Peter Naulls
Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> In article <3cf29174...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org>
> wrote:
>
> Sorry if you feel that it is rubbish, but it's all completely true. I
> don't expect you to understand it or see the reason behind it, for the
> very reason that I said it. Dismissing it makes no difference.
>
> > But you haven't. And who's being patronising?
>
> You. And I don't believe I am the first to point it out, either.
Oh please. Let's recap what happened. I pointed out faults in Paul's
reasoning that RISC OS was in some way special for writing small
applications. In fact, it's not because good (or better) facilities
exist under Unix (at least for non-graphical stuff, otherwise BASIC on
RISC OS is clearly an excellent tool for playing with graphics). For
Windows, the situation is different.
I also pointed out that many types of applications are far easier to
develop on non-RISC OS platforms simply because of the range of tools,
IDEs and so forth.
In response, you went on about "two sides to the argument" - although
you couldn't name what they were. You also insisted that I didn't
appreciate some aspects of programming such as quick hacks - which I
clearly do (regardless of whether I approve of them or not) - but you
couldn't give any examples.
I'm sorry that you feel that hand waving, waffle, or not giving specific
examples is a substitute for reasoned debate, replying to specific
things I said, or giving references, but the bottom line is that you did
none of these things. If you want to try again, then I'll happily
respond to anything you want to say about RISC OS programming, but for
the moment, you'd made that all but impossible.
--
Peter Naulls - pe...@chocky.org | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unix Programs on RISC OS | http://www.riscos.info/unix/
Chika
Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> In message <4d752fd6...@no.spam.here>
> Chika <miy...@spam-no-way.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <3cf29174...@chocky.org>, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Sorry if you feel that it is rubbish, but it's all completely true. I
> > don't expect you to understand it or see the reason behind it, for the
> > very reason that I said it. Dismissing it makes no difference.
> >
> > > But you haven't. And who's being patronising?
> >
> > You. And I don't believe I am the first to point it out, either.
> Oh please.
Uh uh! Careful of those social skills!
> Let's recap what happened. I pointed out faults in Paul's
> reasoning that RISC OS was in some way special for writing small
> applications.
Let's actually look at what you wrote, shall we?
In article <06b16a74...@chocky.org>,
Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> Certain types of small applications, perhaps. But that comparision
> doesn't really apply unless you really mean Windows, not "PC".
Splitting hairs here, but then I did the same, so I'll let you off.
> In any case, ease of programming is one of the things RISC OS can
> certainly lack when it comes to larger applications - not just because
> people so often insist on writing their own Wimp libraries - but because
> of the lack of things a range of debugging tools (slowly improving now
> finally), unsatisfactory memory protection (see my recent drobe article)
> and lack of rapid prototyping tools for C/C++ applications.
I believe that the problem is defining what you are referring to by
"small" and "large" applications. In many cases, even with relatively
large chunks of code, not everybody is looking for all the things that you
mention. In this respect, you are overcomplicating things. What I meant by
"two sides of the argument" is that whilst I can appreciate your point, I
can also accept that the basic ease of use of the inbuild languages that
RISC OS provides, while maybe not up to your liking, is a big strength.
That, however, has nothing to do with my reason for pointing the finger,
something that I said I was not going to do but, there, you pushed me to
it.
Anyway, to continue...
> In fact, it's not because good (or better) facilities exist under Unix
> (at least for non-graphical stuff, otherwise BASIC on RISC OS is clearly
> an excellent tool for playing with graphics). For Windows, the
> situation is different.
I'd argue that, but then that's a personal preference. I have found plenty
of good and bad facilities on each platform, and have often found myself
wishing for certain facilities of one system whilst working on another.
Again, it's horse for courses. You use what you can find and what you work
best with.
> I also pointed out that many types of applications are far easier to
> develop on non-RISC OS platforms simply because of the range of tools,
> IDEs and so forth.
> In response, you went on about "two sides to the argument" - although
> you couldn't name what they were. You also insisted that I didn't
> appreciate some aspects of programming such as quick hacks - which I
> clearly do (regardless of whether I approve of them or not) - but you
> couldn't give any examples.
I hardly need to give you examples if you know them.
> I'm sorry that you feel that hand waving, waffle, or not giving specific
> examples is a substitute for reasoned debate, replying to specific
> things I said, or giving references, but the bottom line is that you did
> none of these things. If you want to try again, then I'll happily
> respond to anything you want to say about RISC OS programming, but for
> the moment, you'd made that all but impossible.
As far as RISC OS programming goes, I don't mind making time for your
experience (I'd be silly not to, since the survival of any platform comes
from the sharing of experience). However, you appear to have muddled two
arguments together, whether accidentally or on purpose so I'd agree that
any further converse would be difficult.
--
//\ // Chika <zvl...@penfuarg.bet.hx. - ROT13>
// \// Hitting Googlespammers with hyper-hammers!
... Does history record any case where a majority was right?
John Cartmell
Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote:
> I'm sorry that you feel that hand waving, waffle, or not giving specific
> examples is a substitute for reasoned debate
Reasoned debate is probably the first thing to suffer when posters fear
unreasonable criticism. As you pointed out "it is very easy to be critical" of
real or imagined errors whilst failing to see ones own.
You're also right in thinking that you should have had more leeway in
responses to your list of rules which is a valuable contribution. If we all
adhere to such rules we will be able to hold many more reasoned debates.
Let's do that.
Stefan Bellon
> Of course, even if referring to unix, perl is no way as easy to
> quickly write a utility as RISC OS BASIC. For a start, you're pretty
> much limited to command line utilities unless you start faffing out
> outputing to web browsers or X11 or something, plus perl is a lot
> harder to debug than BASIC, so the development cycle can be longer.
I really disagree here. Perl is much harder to maintain if you have to
over a long period of time. But the first time development is lots
quicker than BBC BASIC because you have high level data types at hand.
And the ease of using regular expressions makes it powerful. However, a
BASIC program can be maintained a lot easier even years later and by
other people than the original author then a Perl program.
--
Stefan Bellon
ne...@rtrussell.co.uk
Or BBC BASIC for Windows ? Brandy's graphics capabilities are pretty
primitive, and being DOS/Console based it's hard or impossible to
interact with the Windows GUI. BB4W on the other hand fully supports
all (I think) BASIC V's PLOT functionality and as it's a proper Windows
program you've got easy access to the Windows API for anything you
can't do that way.
For the kind of application you describe the (free) evaluation version
of BBC BASIC for Windows should be more than adequate. It can be
downloaded from here:
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/products/bbcwin/download.html
Note that although described as an 'evaluation' version it is fully
functional and there are no time-limited features. The only
restrictions are that your program must fit in 8K, and the 'compile'
utility (which allows you to create a stand-alone executable) is
absent.
Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/
To reply by email change 'news' to my forename.
dominic beesley
YMMV, I've seen horribly thrown together intractible BASIC programs
(written I have to admit by me) that I've had to abandon and start again
after they've been on the shelf for a couple of years. I've also seen
beautifully _clear_ debugable perl scripts, though not often. And
vice-versa.
It really is horses for courses, this kind of debate can never reach a
conclusion; some people like one language above another, some times an
individuals taste will change over time, some tasks are easier in Perl
than in BASIC and vice-versa. eg. try doing regular expressions in
BASIC, I used to try and do it in C and PASCAL because I thought Perl
was rubbish, I've now learnt how to use it (vaguely) and reach for it on
a fairly regular basis...blah blah blah
Dom
Chris de Cordova
<ne...@rtrussell.co.uk> wrote:
> For the kind of application you describe the (free) evaluation
> version of BBC BASIC for Windows should be more than adequate. It
> can be downloaded from here:
> http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/products/bbcwin/download.html
Thank you
--
__ __
/ \ | _ ' , _| _ / \ _ _ _| _ _
| |/\ |/ /| / \ / | /_\ | / \|/ / | / \\ // |
\__/ | |/| |_/ _/ \_/|/\_, \__/ \_/| \_/|/\_/ \/ \_/|
I'm desperately trying to figure out why kamikaze pilots wore helmets.
Steve Fryatt
<d7s9fr$ece$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>:
> YMMV, I've seen horribly thrown together intractible BASIC programs
> (written I have to admit by me) that I've had to abandon and start again
> after they've been on the shelf for a couple of years. I've also seen
> beautifully _clear_ debugable perl scripts, though not often. And
> vice-versa.
BBC BASIC suffers badly for things like Wimp programming, as it is often
necessary to abandon the built-in variables and store all data in blocks
of memory using the indirection operators. Without a lot of care, this
can very quickly result in completely indecipherable code.
--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England
Paul F. Johnson
> Of course, even if referring to unix, perl is no way as easy to quickly
> write a utility as RISC OS BASIC. For a start, you're pretty much limited
> to command line utilities unless you start faffing out outputing to web
> browsers or X11 or something, plus perl is a lot harder to debug than
> BASIC, so the development cycle can be longer.
What about something like tk/tcl? Very simple to use and very quick to
get things up and running under. perl is also not that bad to debug
either. In quite a number of respects, it's as simple, if not simpler
than BASIC.
TTFN
Paul
--
"Space", it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how
vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big space really is. I mean, you may
think it's a long way down the road to the chemists, but that's just
*peanuts* compared to space, listen" - Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy
ne...@rtrussell.co.uk
> What about something like tk/tcl? Very simple to use and very quick to
> get things up and running under. perl is also not that bad to debug
> either. In quite a number of respects, it's as simple, if not simpler
> than BASIC.
I entirely agree, but to some extent that very simplicity can be
a problem. Sooner or later you'll want to do something you can't
do with Tcl/TK or Perl, and be faced with learning yet another PC
language like Visual BASIC or C#.
The advantage of BBC BASIC on the PC is that it can do all those
simple things, often with virtually no learning curve for a RISCOS
user, but when you do get the urge to write that 'killer' Windows
application (and believe me it can happen, even to RISCOS users!)
you'll be able to do that in BBC BASIC, too.
For some independent reviews of BBC BASIC for Windows look here:
http://www.download.com/BBC-BASIC-for-Windows/3640-2069_4-10351776.html
Paul F. Johnson
On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 14:57 -0700, ne...@rtrussell.co.uk wrote:
> and be faced with learning yet another PC
> language like Visual BASIC or C#.
C# is not the province of just Windows boxes.
Bill Oldroyd
> Paul F. Johnson wrote:
>
>> What about something like tk/tcl? Very simple to use and very quick
>> to get things up and running under. perl is also not that bad to
>> debug either. In quite a number of respects, it's as simple, if not
>> simpler than BASIC.
> I entirely agree, but to some extent that very simplicity can be a
> problem. Sooner or later you'll want to do something you can't do
> with Tcl/TK or Perl, and be faced with learning yet another PC
> language like Visual BASIC or C#.
The language to learn is Python - it will do most things you want,
usually very simply, and unlike Perl you can write programs that you can
understand when you need at some later date to modify them, and use you
Tcl/TK knowledge when developing user interfaces.
It also has the advantage that it runs on Windows, Linux, Unix, RiscOS
etc., and it is free.
Bill