Linux-Advocacy Digest #598, Volume #28 Wed, 23 Aug 00 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Ed Cogburn)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Pat McCann)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet! ("Ryan Walberg (MCSD)")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:32:28 GMT
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:51:32 GMT, Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> But, OTOH, perhaps you can explain why income disparity between the
>> "rich" and the "poor" is vastly worse today than it was under the Reagan
>> and Bush administrations?
>
>Because it took several years of accumulated Reagan-era tax breaks for
>those rich guys to get so rich?
You need money to make money & once you have it, it's a geometric
progression.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:35:28 GMT
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:22:07 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8nplbe$q3l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>> Catch-22. Microsoft used its market power to prevent IBM from turning
>> OS/2 into a viable alternative by making it impossible for IBM to
>> promote it.
>
>Why couldn't IBM just drop Windows 95 altogether and solely promote OS/2 ?
>
>Answer: it wasn't good enough.
Translation: "it wasn't the most popular option".
OS/2 was plenty good enough, it just didn't have the mindshare
and 3rd party support: which is what people really buy operating
systems for.
[deletia]
MSDOS vs. Macintosh.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:37:25 -0400
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
>
> In article <q6Ko5.7416$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8nvd23$3m0
> > > Here's the irony. Bill Gate's first Operating System was actually
> > > Xenix, a variant of Version 6 UNIX. When Gates offered IBM an OS,
> > > he already had Xenix in his back pocket (he'd been selling it to
> > > Tandy for almost 2 years).
> >
> > Yes, the first OS that they developed.
> > Still it was a liscensed Sys V port
> > if I recall correctly.
>
> Close - Sys V came out in 1985. Xenix was a variant of Version 6
> UNIX which was distributed among the Schools in 1979.
correction...version 7 was what went to the collegiate community.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:42:29 GMT
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:57:06 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Tr�ger) wrote:
>
>> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> > > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > [...]
>> > > >If you believed in free markets, you wouldn't be posting drivel
>> > > >along
>> > > >the lines that companies shouldn't be allowed to "profiteer" (to use
>> > > >your meaningless word).
>> > >
>> > > Its not meaningless, and civil injunction against profiteering is a
>> > > necessary part of a free market system. Whether or not you can say a
>> >
>> > Bullshit.
>> >
>> > You just said that in a free market system, the market decides when a
>> > company is charging too much. Now you're saying civil injunctions are
>> > needed.
>>
>> Point is, when there is a monopoly, the market can not do anything
>> against it when a company is charging too much - the market is not free
>> anymore.
>
>So there should be a free market until someone says that a company is
>charging too much, then you throw out the free market?
Such a condition should certainly trigger further scrutiny.
>
>>
>> > In a free market system, there's no such thing as profiteering. The
>> > concept doesn't even exist. If the customer is willing to pay the
>> > vendor's price, a transaction occurs and the price was not excessive.
>> > If
>> > the price is excessive, the customer doesn't pay and no transaction
>> > occurs.
>>
>> So when there IS profiteering, it's an indication that there is no free
>> market, but a monopoly.
>
>Wrong. It means that consumers value a product highly.
>
That condition could also be one manufactured by the
producer in question.
[deletia]
>AND, the issue isn't about monopolies, anyway. T. Max (and, again, you
>by association) is saying that a company shouldn't be allowed to earn
>too much money. That has nothing to do with monopolies (other than his
>rather bizarre assumption that if a company makes lots of money it must
>be a monopoly).
Market pressures should force prices down. Competition and perfect
replaceability should make arbitrary levels of profit unachievable.
When such large margins are present, both conditions of a free market
need to be investigated.
It's quite possible that your example company takes advantage of the
lack of replaceability in a particular market.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:03:07 -0400
From: Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ed Cogburn
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Tax cuts from the right are always designed to help the rich, that's
> > already been stated in this thread. So the tax cuts did help... they've
> > managed to expand the gap between rich and poor to its worse state since
> > the 1920s. For the rich the economy is great, but everyone else is just
> > treading water, including the shrinking middle class.
>
> The middle clas is only shrinking because of games like calling those
> who make over $60 K wealthy.
>
> As for the concept that only the rich benefit, can you explain why the
> welfare rolls are 75% smaller than they were a decade ago--and lower
> than they've ever been? How does that support your contention that the
> poor don't benefit?
Let's start with your assumption that the "poor" are on welfare. They
aren't. They're working poor, whose financial situation deteriorates a
little every year, but they keep working anyway because of pride.
Part of the reason welfare rolls are smaller is due to the "welfare
reform" in the last decade, such as the Republican governor of Michigan,
I believe, which mainly comes down to time limits on the use of
welfare. Kicking people off welfare by getting them a minimum wage job
doesn't magically convert those people into the non-poor, it just
converts them to the working poor. Most welfare recipients don't *want*
to be on welfare, they have pride too.
The issue of welfare has nothing to do with the widening rich-poor gap
anyway.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:57:34 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Nathaniel Jay Lee escribi�:
>>
>>
>> Well, our original conversation stemmed from a thread
>> where someone was involved with a conversation (in real
>> life) with a group of people that were all fired up
>> because the 'geeks' were ruining Linux for the 'real
>> people' that had made investments in it. It stemmed from
>> an article that said 'geeks' are fighting to keep the GUI
>> from being fully integrated in the kernel and the 'real
>> people' are saying that is the only way to 'fight'
>> Windows. And the 'real people' want the geeks to leave
>> Linux alone and let these 'real people' make their
>> investments back on Linux. (see why the whole thing kind
>> of fired us up?)
>
>I see. I would say, "sure, here you have linux, I will
>now go work on my nice 'geekos' here" :-)
I don't know why but I 'heard' this in my head in Eric
Cartmen's voice:-).
Seriously though, the problem would stem from the possible
incompatibilities between the 'real' version and the
'geek' version. Now, if all you ever use is Free/Open
software, that's not a real problem (I've done many
patches before). But say there's a commercial app
available that you 'need' and it's only available for
'real' Linux, not 'geek' Linux?
I know, some people don't give a shit about the code fork
dilema (and yes, I know there are current 'forks' but none
that I know of that cause binary incompatibilities), but I
do. I guess I'm a little picky on that issue.
>>
>> That's just it, we don't know 'who' is in charge of the
>> 'standard'. At the moment it is us 'non-real people'
>> called geeks.
>
>I'd say we are not. I'd say noone is :-)
Yeah, that is possible at the moment. That's one of the
effects of having Linux in the seemingly constant state of
flux it appears to be in right now. Isn't that the case
with adolescents everywhere? ;-)
>
>> But we see more and more business interest
>> in Linux, and we all know that businesses aren't real good
>> at making positive technical decisions (especially when
>> people are clamouring for bad technical decisions).
>
>Yep. Which is why we can ignore their decisions,
>in principle., Since they have no means of enforcing
>their choices, they are specially easy to ignore :-)
>
>If Sun/HP/whoever declares GNUStep the standard desktop
>tomorrow, I can ignore it just as easily as when they
>declared CDE the standard desktop, or Motif the standard
>toolkit.
Well, as long as we don't have a huge number of coders
working for those companies that then start adding code to
the kernel that force you to use GNUStep. I know, that's
one hell of a stretch, but it's exactly the kind of
idiotic assumption we started with. We (and by that I
mean mjcr and myself) don't feel that is a 'good'
direction, and feel it would be a huge waste of energies.
So we said so.
As you said in free/open software it doesn't matter that
much, but binary incompatibilities are something I don't
like the idea of.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 16:26:11 -0300
Nathaniel Jay Lee escribi�:
> Seriously though, the problem would stem from the possible
> incompatibilities between the 'real' version and the
> 'geek' version. Now, if all you ever use is Free/Open
> software, that's not a real problem (I've done many
> patches before). But say there's a commercial app
> available that you 'need' and it's only available for
> 'real' Linux, not 'geek' Linux?
Then we either implement it, or we live without it, or
we double-boot. Just like now.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 23 Aug 2000 12:20:21 -0700
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks, and I'll consider using different phrasing in the future. But
> the fact is this is one of those 'hairbrained theories' things; I
> believe the statute and precedent support a dual use of the term "copy",
> and while used strictly, it nevertheless refers to either copying the
> "intellectual property", or copying a produced copy of that intellectual
> property, which you might call 'the fixed form' or 'the expression' or
> "the produced work" or "the reproduced work" or "the product" depending
> on context. Since "copying" (reproducing) is an infringement, and S.117
> says copying to RAM is not infringement, then you aren't "copying" when
> you're "copying". Or, rather, you are copying the code, but not the
> intellectually property.
While it is fair to loosely speak of a protected work as "IP", I think
it would be helpful in these discussions to speak of copies of a
creative work (or software or program) covered by IP rights. There are
many separate rights in a work, each of which may have a different
proprietor, but only one work. And S.101 implies that copies are
objects in which the work is fixed, either the first time or later. I
would define "copying" as the creation of a copy (maybe excepting the
first copy) of a work. USC17 never refers to copying code or IP and I
think we shouldn't here either. I see no need for two kinds of copies.
> And so it is not 'copying in the copyright sense' in that copyright
> prohibits copying, does it not?
It does not, in all circumstances. Just most. The law has several
"notwithstanding" clauses.
http://www.ifla.org/documents/infopol/copyright/hari1.htm Contracts,
"Copyright, and Preemption in a Digital World" by I. Trotter Hardy
discusses how the law is changing from the Constitution's pure total
property right in one's work to "whatever we think promotes the progress
of science and useful (and useless) arts" law. Some of us see that
as a dangerous change that encourages a form of mob (interest group)
rule. I'll dare to call it socialism-lite (when the mobs are poor)
or facsism-lite (when the mobs are rich).
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:24:34 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> You are allowed to increase
> >> your profits. If that increases your market share, as well, then fine.
> >> You are not allowed to take efforts to increase your market share
> >> directly ('monopolization', section 2 of the Sherman Act) nor to take
> >> efforts to decrease someone else's market share directly ('restraint of
> >> trade', section 1 of the Sherman Act).
> >
> >In that case, shouldn't advertising be illegal? The primary goal of
> >advertising is to increase market share.
>
> Quite possibly, in the simple gedunken sense which you provide, yes.
>
> The primary goal of advertising is supposed to be to increase your
> sales, by providing information to potential customers about your
> product and its competitive advantages. As it performs that function,
> its perfectly legitimate, if somewhat obnoxious.
But every time your sales increase, so does your market share.
> FUD, certainly, should be considered a Section 1 (restraint of trade)
> violation. Don't you agree?
I think it depends on the FUD. I don't look too kindly on monopolists
preannouncing vaporware to prevent sales of upcoming challengers of the
monopolist. But I'm not sure it should reach the point of illegality...
by this time, people who trust Microsoft preannouncements have got to be
very naive folks.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: "Ryan Walberg (MCSD)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 19:28:22 GMT
By "server" == "driver", he was probably talking about his X server.
2:1 wrote:
>
> In article <TJHo5.2413$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "DES" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am an average guy who also got fed up with MS and decided to give
> Linux a
> > try. Being an average guy I guessed I would need help so paid Red Hat
> for
> > their 6.2 Delux version which came with telephone help for 30 days.
> Yes I
> > did RTFM and you know what I found!!! A whole new bloody language!!!
> For
> > those of you new to Linux; "Image" now means "copy", "Server" now
> means
> > "driver" etc. At least Mrs Gates little boy tried to make things easy
> for
> > us!
>
> No, you didn't find a new language, you found a different language. This
> hes its roots very clearly in UNIX, making it an older languae than the
> one spoken by Microsoft. So, why exactly should Bill G sticking to his
> own language be in any way different to the linux world stickling to
> _its_ own language?
>
> How does image mean copy---in what circumstances (disk image? that's a
> copy of sorts, but a specific type and deserved a more descriptive name)
> And where does 'server' mean 'driver'. I have never encountered this
> one.
>
> > Give me a break, keep yor eye on your objective instead of trying to
> spite
> > MS. Make it easy for Joe Public.
>
> You're the one with his eye way off the objective. If we wanted to spite
> MS then we would make it as easy for Joe Public as possible to try to
> steal as many users. Most of us don't want that, what we want is a
> stable, powerful OS that lets us do what we want[1]. Since the OS is
> made by us, we get what we want.
>
> How long have been using Windows for? My guess is several years. Now you
> are expecting to have the same proficiency with linux after 30 days as
> you do with windows after years. I think that you are expectiong too
> much.
>
> [1] Having a erally powerful OS and having one that is accessible to Joe
> Public has so far prooven impossible. Sure I would like it if it were
> possible, but I'd rather have an OS that lets me get the most out of nmy
> ageing hardware than one that is easy for someone with no experience to
> use.
>
> -Ed
>
> **************DISCLAIMER*******************
> These are _OPINIONS_. If you don't agree, remember that they are
> _OPINIONS_.
>
> --
> BBC Computer 32K
> Acorn DFS
> Basic
> >*MAIL ku.ca.xo.gne@rje98u (backwards, if you want to talk to me)
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Ryan D. Walberg, B.Sc., MCP, MCSD
Boom Software Inc.
(204) 944-8212 ext. 254
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:28:22 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Oh, you can keep the market share, if you're able. But, no, you're not
> allowed to maintain the monopoly power. That's monopolizing, and its a
> crime.
If you use "maintain" in the legal sense, yes. If you use it in the
general sense, then no.
I think a lot of the arguments in this thread are going on because one
person uses the first sense and somebody else misreads it as have been
used in the second sense, or vice versa.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 19:30:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Donal K. Fellows
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 23 Aug 2000 14:48:32 GMT
<8o0o80$d54$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, due to it's late 1950's precepts, you learn a lot
>>> of habits which later need to be unlearned.
>>
>> I'm slightly curious as to what these habits are; I can guess
>> some of them, though:
>>
>> - Global variable namespace. (YUCK!)
>
>Global vars are OK, so long as you only use them for global values. :^)
True. Of course, BASIC exacerbates the problem by allowing the user
to do assignment statements on implicitly-defined variables.
>
>> - GOTO, which can be useful, but more often than not just
>> ties program flows up in knots. [*] It can also bypass
>> variable initializations without the BASIC interpreter
>> even noticing, leading to some bizarre bugs.
>>
>> - IF ... THEN line# or IF ... GOTO line#.
>
>Line numbering is bad. Period. I thought it sucked rocks even before
>I had learned a proper programming language. Textual labels are
>better. Structured programming is *way* better.
True as well.
>
>> - Double meaning of '='. Admittedly, I'm not sure I like C/C++'s
>> '==' (too easy to mistype and overlook in expressions), but at
>> least the tokenizer doesn't have to know whether it's assigning a
>> variable or within an expression. (Pascal uses ':=' for assignment,
>> which might have been better, except that many dialects of BASIC
>> use ':' as a statement delimiter.)
>
>In languages I design, I make "==" into a comparison operator and ":="
>into an assignment operator. If I allow plain "=" anywhere in the
>text of a program (outside strings of course) it is as an entirely
>different kind of semantic object, forcing a really loud compiler
>complaint at any misuse. So what if you have to type an extra
>character some of the time? It's worth it for not having to track
>down bizarre "that comparison is really an assignment" errors...
I wish I'd thought of that. :-) Mind you, I'm used to C's
foibles by now (I've been using it for years), but that's certainly
a not unreasonable way of working around the Problematic Typo problem.
>
>> - The original BASICs didn't have #include. I don't know if VB does.
>
>Mind you, #include has got to be a truly piss-poor way of performing
>modular code management, inviting as it does much obfuscation and mad
>hackery without providing any kind of solid semantic base for what is
>going on. (I'm not too happy with the other alternatives, as
>illustrated in Delphi, Java and the Modulas. But C's technique sucks
>rocks.)
Agreed; I've yet to see a satisfactory method of having code part
A reference code part B, although Java's is not too bad. At least,
one can parse it.
>
>> - Apple ][ Basic was actually very bright about tokenization.
>> Sadly, all subsequent (interpreted) Basics that I know the internal
>> format of got extremely stupid; at best, the final character of
>> a word had the 8th bit set. For compiled Basics, of course,
>> this is less of an issue. (At least Basic is slightly brighter
>> than FORTRAN's "DO 10 I = 1.10", which is actually a variable
>> assignment because of the '.' instead of the ',' -- a simple typo.)
>
>Some BASICs (notably Spectrum basic prior to the introduction of the
>128) had direct entry of tokens; it was actually a very fast way of
>programming, or would have been with a nicer keyboard... :^)
>A side effect was that the LET keyword was mandatory, though not a
>major burden in practise. Which made the meaning of assignments much
>clearer from a pedagogic point of view.
>
>[...]
>> and they're all very different. (The HP basic, for example, only
>> had 26 string variables A$ - Z$, 286 numeric variables A-Z and
>> A0-Z9, and 26 arrays. I don't remember whether arrays were
>> multidimensional or not - I doubt it. And yes, it had line
>> numbers. Apple ][ Basic only had 16-bit integers. Apple ///
>> screwed up the tokenization AFAIK, but did support floating-point.
>> Visual Basic doesn't (necessarily?) use line numbers. Amiga
>> ABasic and Amiga/Microsoft AmigaBasic had lots of hooks for
>> Amiga's shared libraries and graphics -- good luck porting those!)
>
>Speccy basic had arbitrary naming for numeric variables (and no
>user-visible distinction between integer and floating-point numbers)
>but only a$-z$ for strings. Or was that arrays? Or both? I forget,
>it was such a long time ago...
I think HP 21xx Basic had every non-string variable contain
floating point. I could be wrong.
>
>> [*] There are proper ways of using GOTO, mostly to get out of a
>> deeply-nested inner loop. IMO, of course.
>
>Better to use a labelled continue/break or an exception.
C doesn't have such, but for languages that support labelled
continue/breaks, that's an option. C also doesn't support
exceptions (C++ does, but I don't know how well). I forget
whether Java has labelled continue/breaks; I don't use them
at present (blame it on my C/C++ background :-) ).
>
><reminiscing>
>Ah, the happy memories I have of my first program. It drew a picture
>of an open envelope on the screen, one pixel at a time...
></reminiscing>
Luxury! The first program I wrote displayed numbers on a Wang
calculator; seven-segment displays, if my memory serves.
(Dunno precisely what it did; probably something stupid like
"hello world".)
>
>Donal.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- I was lucky, though; I didn't have to use pebbles
to calculate my results (subtle pun intended! :-) )
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
