No basic is not and never was #1 candidate for spaghetti code! That disgrace belongs to Cobol.
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Elias Athanasopoulos wrote: > On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 10:04:30PM +0000, Heimo Claasen wrote: > > Sorry, I should have made this a bit more explicit: as the sub-thread > > started from some exchange on XBasic v-a-v Quickbasic, I referred to the > > lack of a Basic _compiler_. > > (_interpreters_ use to be hotbeds for spaghetti code, indeed. And in > > any case, they are "slow"; which is the reason for having binaries > > progs at all.) > > Excuse me, I don't want to start a flamewar, but compilers/interpreters have > nothing to do with the aesthitic result of your code. This has to do 100% > with the grammar/syntax of the language you are coding. > > And BASIC is number 1 candidate for spaghetti code... > > Elias > > -- > http://gnewtellium.sourceforge.net MP3 is not a crime. > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs
