Steve wrote:
>
> There are several basics for Linux... Red Hat 5.x used to have
> one included right on the install CD, but 6.x has no basic on
> the install OR the power tools CD.
Thanks Steve, I do have the RH5.1 CD and my CD is PHYSICALLY installed, but
I haven't installed the software to run it in DOS yet - no use for it. <g>
I've noticed that PYGMY07 recognizes it's presence, so I'll take a look for
Basic on that CD tonite.
> HOWEVER... in the world of Linux, quick and dirty is usually
> done with bash for "system" kind of stuff, with perl for
> complex text manipulations, and with python when you need
> a "real" programming language.
>
> Basic is viewed with anything from mirth to disdain. ;-)
Yes, on most planets "Basic" is frowned upon - hence the subject line - but
I find it a thousand times more useful than "C", and I'm not worried about
personal image.<G>
I need to write a Q&D, easily modifiable, analog data collection and control
program for a production test system - trivial when using DOS.
Gregor J Jones wrote:
>
> Remember, caverge, the end result of any compiled program _is_
> machine specific (assembly) language.
Yes, but I was hoping to find an _interpretive_ "Basic" (TM)(reg).
> Best regards
>
> PS, your sig dashes need fixing.
Hehe. You are quite right Gregor. They have needed fixing for about two
years now.
But, instead of fixing the sig, I've been manually editing every (almost)
single message I've sent in the interval. (About 4000)
Sort of like "Basic".
Quicker and easier when I don't have time to do better.<G>
However, the message in the subject line was sent with the instant "fixed"
sig, so are you referring to one I missed or is there another problem ?
This sig line has been edited to the fixed state. (I think)
- Clarence Verge
--
- Help stamp out FATWARE. As a start visit: http://home.arachne.cz/
--
