We would not be here were it not for DTSS

John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> wrote in
news:EpCdnRI0ivb6VqXDnZ2dnUU7-U_NnZ2d@giganews.com:

On 2020/02/03 5:13 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 6:57:19 AM UTC+11, John S wrote:
On 2/2/2020 5:38 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
wrote:
This is one of the major groups that brought us forward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYPNjSoDrqw


Yes, I think so. That was a very interesting video.

I remember time-sharing and BASIC as well as Super BASIC. My
program allowed me to design very small high voltage
transformers in a few seconds rather than hours. And other
designs as well. That was in the early 60s.

Note that BASIC still exists in many forms and is very useful
for solving problems quickly. Power Basic comes to mind. I think
JL uses it for several purposes, like for his stock parts
inventory.

And people think that climate change denial propaganda is worth
propagating.

The fact that you can use BASIC and it it's variants to
eventually do what you could do faster with a more appropriate
language doesn't make a good choice.

DLUNU was claiming that the invention of BASIC represented some
kind of advance. Teaching lots of undergraduates to program was a
good idea, but that's it.


That's not unlike saying that teaching kids to read and write was
a good idea, but that's it. Probably just use reading and writing
to record cooking recipes - a waste of time!

It seems to me that allowing the average kid access to computers
sparked a major interest in these machines that would not have
developed anywhere near as fast.

In this matter I might fairly claim that you are the
denier...(ducking)

John ;-#)#

No. What he is is iliterate. The topic clearly states things, and
I never said BASIC was this great advance. Slotard likes to poke
folks and he got it wrong yet again. He presumed I was referring to
BASIC as that is what the video talks about and is titled as. He
proved he did not watch it and only looked at the title.

In the video, the more more robust languages were mentioned, yet
another proof that the chump did not even watch the video.

Putting that aside, it actually was advanced inasmuch as it was an
interpreted language as opposed to a compiled language. This made it
hugely more cross platform compatible.

Try moving a Burroughs mainframe MRP application to the PC. Unable
to even do it back in those 286 386 days when we tried.

Still not the point. Overkill Bill will never get the point. His
functioning brain matter would fit on the end of a molecular probe.
And that was before his senility started kicking in.

 

On Tuesday, 4 February 2020 01:40:00 UTC, John Robertson wrote:

On 2020/02/03 5:13 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 6:57:19 AM UTC+11, John S wrote:
On 2/2/2020 5:38 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

This is one of the major groups that brought us forward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYPNjSoDrqw


Yes, I think so. That was a very interesting video.

I remember time-sharing and BASIC as well as Super BASIC. My program
allowed me to design very small high voltage transformers in a few
seconds rather than hours. And other designs as well. That was in the
early 60s.

Note that BASIC still exists in many forms and is very useful for
solving problems quickly. Power Basic comes to mind. I think JL uses it
for several purposes, like for his stock parts inventory.

And people think that climate change denial propaganda is worth propagating.

The fact that you can use BASIC and it it's variants to eventually do what you could do faster with a more appropriate language doesn't make a good choice.

DLUNU was claiming that the invention of BASIC represented some kind of advance. Teaching lots of undergraduates to program was a good idea, but that's it.


That's not unlike saying that teaching kids to read and write was a good
idea, but that's it. Probably just use reading and writing to record
cooking recipes - a waste of time!

It seems to me that allowing the average kid access to computers sparked
a major interest in these machines that would not have developed
anywhere near as fast.

In this matter I might fairly claim that you are the denier...(ducking)

John ;-#)#

Funny that he doesn't get the entire point of basic & how it changed the world.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 1:55:50 PM UTC+11, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:b464839c-0d41-4452-83f3-1b02bf7e20ce@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 6:57:19 AM UTC+11, John S wrote:
On 2/2/2020 5:38 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
wrote:
This is one of the major groups that brought us forward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYPNjSoDrqw


Yes, I think so. That was a very interesting video.

I remember time-sharing and BASIC as well as Super BASIC. My
program allowed me to design very small high voltage transformers
in a few seconds rather than hours. And other designs as well.
That was in the early 60s.

Note that BASIC still exists in many forms and is very useful for
solving problems quickly. Power Basic comes to mind. I think JL
uses it for several purposes, like for his stock parts inventory.

And people think that climate change denial propaganda is worth
propagating.

The fact that you can use BASIC and it it's variants to eventually
do what you could do faster with a more appropriate language
doesn't make a good choice.

DLUNU was claiming that the invention of BASIC represented some
kind of advance. Teaching lots of undergraduates to program was a
good idea, but that's it.


No, idiot. I was relating to the fact that those men changed the
way mainframes and minis were utilized at colleges. Look at my topic
title, dumbass. DTSS. That is a different paradigm over batch
processed computing. Kind of like lean manufacturing.

I was there when it was happening. BASIC didn't come into it.

The development of small, cheap and moderately powerful computers was what made the difference, and all sorts of people used them in all sorts of different ways.

> I know you have to run off and google a couple things now...

Not on this subject. The first computer I used was a mainframe - an IBM 7040/44.

I even got to operate if from time to time, though it's main job was batch processing loads of little jobs for all the students (and a lot of the staff) at the University of Melbourne. The second computer I used - at much the same time - was a DEC PDP-8, which wasn't used to run batch programs. I used it to record the outputs of my chemical kinetics experiments, which got punched out on paper tape, converted to Hollerith cards, and run through the IBM 7040/44 (usually at around 2.00 am) for serious data extraction - non-linear multi-paramater curve fitting.

The PDP-8 did have a BASIC compiler, but it really wasn't worth using.

Once I'd got my Ph.D. I got to work with advanced computers doing more exotic jobs.

One of the electron beam testers I was involved with - much later - was used to debug the first Motorola 68000 processor chips, and the Motorola guy who used it claimed that the machine shortened the debugging phase by about three months.

Teaching undergraduates to program in BASIC might have been worth doing, but it wasn't exactly a crucial engine of change.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 12:40:00 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:

On 2020/02/03 5:13 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 6:57:19 AM UTC+11, John S wrote:
On 2/2/2020 5:38 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
This is one of the major groups that brought us forward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYPNjSoDrqw


Yes, I think so. That was a very interesting video.

I remember time-sharing and BASIC as well as Super BASIC. My program
allowed me to design very small high voltage transformers in a few
seconds rather than hours. And other designs as well. That was in the
early 60s.

Note that BASIC still exists in many forms and is very useful for
solving problems quickly. Power Basic comes to mind. I think JL uses it
for several purposes, like for his stock parts inventory.

And people think that climate change denial propaganda is worth propagating.

The fact that you can use BASIC and it it's variants to eventually do what you could do faster with a more appropriate language doesn't make a good choice.

DLUNU was claiming that the invention of BASIC represented some kind of advance. Teaching lots of undergraduates to program was a good idea, but that's it.


That's not unlike saying that teaching kids to read and write was a good
idea, but that's it. Probably just use reading and writing to record
cooking recipes - a waste of time!

It seems to me that allowing the average kid access to computers sparked
a major interest in these machines that would not have developed
anywhere near as fast.

BASIC was more aimed at undergraduates than kids.

I'm not sure that getting kids into programming really early is such a good idea.

There's a great deal of sloppy program writing around, and getting people into it when they are old enough to understand that care and attention to detail might pay off better - in the long term - than letting them learn early on how to quickly crank out something that more or less works.

Hobbyists still learn how to use the 741 and the 555, and miss the fact that anything you do with these chips you can do better with other devices.

> In this matter I might fairly claim that you are the denier...(ducking)

You can claim anything you like, and when it comes to climate change you do just that. This is an unmoderated group. Fairness doesn't come into it - nor any real comprehension of what you are claiming.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote in
news:0ebd20f8-5927-4cf5-8b2a-6d1436616ef0@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, 4 February 2020 01:40:00 UTC, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/03 5:13 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 6:57:19 AM UTC+11, John S
wrote:
On 2/2/2020 5:38 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
wrote:

This is one of the major groups that brought us forward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYPNjSoDrqw


Yes, I think so. That was a very interesting video.

I remember time-sharing and BASIC as well as Super BASIC. My
program allowed me to design very small high voltage
transformers in a few seconds rather than hours. And other
designs as well. That was in the early 60s.

Note that BASIC still exists in many forms and is very useful
for solving problems quickly. Power Basic comes to mind. I
think JL uses it for several purposes, like for his stock
parts inventory.

And people think that climate change denial propaganda is worth
propagating.

The fact that you can use BASIC and it it's variants to
eventually do what you could do faster with a more appropriate
language doesn't make a good choice.

DLUNU was claiming that the invention of BASIC represented some
kind of advance. Teaching lots of undergraduates to program was
a good idea, but that's it.


That's not unlike saying that teaching kids to read and write was
a good idea, but that's it. Probably just use reading and writing
to record cooking recipes - a waste of time!

It seems to me that allowing the average kid access to computers
sparked a major interest in these machines that would not have
developed anywhere near as fast.

In this matter I might fairly claim that you are the
denier...(ducking)

John ;-#)#

Funny that he doesn't get the entire point of basic & how it
changed the world.

He doesn't get it. It was not a trivial advancement, but even if
it was, it is still an advancment.

Just think where we would be had Edison not invented the "Edison
Screw Base" light bulb socket standard.

Large or small, the pressed or spun metal, cheap bulb sockets
worked for many types of AC or DC powered "light bulb" type light
source. They were very easy to integrate with the glass bulbs too.
Many times all at the same time on the same line, the glass would get
sealed via torch, cool, and then the socket would get added and the
little center piece and get soldered all automated. And even the
testing too.

Other types experience a loosening of the connection. The screw
insured use in any orientation.

Been around a very long time too.

I'd bet that any school that has a course on computer science for a
junior high school aged child even today touches on BASIC, if not has
course paths that require its use as a lesson. Likely character
based games as well, and moving into the graphically capable
machines.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 3:58:53 PM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, 4 February 2020 01:40:00 UTC, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/03 5:13 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 6:57:19 AM UTC+11, John S wrote:
On 2/2/2020 5:38 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

This is one of the major groups that brought us forward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYPNjSoDrqw


Yes, I think so. That was a very interesting video.

I remember time-sharing and BASIC as well as Super BASIC. My program
allowed me to design very small high voltage transformers in a few
seconds rather than hours. And other designs as well. That was in the
early 60s.

Note that BASIC still exists in many forms and is very useful for
solving problems quickly. Power Basic comes to mind. I think JL uses it
for several purposes, like for his stock parts inventory.

And people think that climate change denial propaganda is worth propagating.

The fact that you can use BASIC and it it's variants to eventually do what you could do faster with a more appropriate language doesn't make a good choice.

DLUNU was claiming that the invention of BASIC represented some kind of advance. Teaching lots of undergraduates to program was a good idea, but that's it.


That's not unlike saying that teaching kids to read and write was a good
idea, but that's it. Probably just use reading and writing to record
cooking recipes - a waste of time!

It seems to me that allowing the average kid access to computers sparked
a major interest in these machines that would not have developed
anywhere near as fast.

In this matter I might fairly claim that you are the denier...(ducking)

Funny that he doesn't get the entire point of basic & how it changed the world.

The entire point of Basic was that it would run on tiny computers, and it didn't change the world.

The world-changing stuff was done on more powerful computers, with rather better programming languages. NT clearly didn't come into contact with any of that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:d88d0ceb-0c50-4983-94c3-b17e27d1e6a3@googlegroups.com:

The entire point of Basic was that it would run on tiny computers,
and it didn't change the world.

Bill Sloman is an abject idiot and has little grasp of computer
science, much less its history, even though he was around as it evolved
and even got to watch someone use one a couple times.

Now that they are ubiquitous, he does have one, but all he uses it
for is posting retarded comments on Usenet.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:3544c5a5-d108-4696-
95c2-88dfbfd43e9e@googlegroups.com:

I was there when it was happening. BASIC didn't come into it.

The move from batch processing to time sharing most certainly did
involve BASIC. Sorry, punk, but you were not at Dartmouth.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 6:00:02 PM UTC+11, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:d88d0ceb-0c50-4983-94c3-b17e27d1e6a3@googlegroups.com:

The entire point of Basic was that it would run on tiny computers,
and it didn't change the world.

Bill Sloman is an abject idiot and has little grasp of computer
science, much less its history, even though he was around as it evolved
and even got to watch someone use one a couple times.

DLUNU doesn't seem to have much of a clue about computer history. He won't know who Alan Turing was, or what he might have bad to do with Donald Watts Davies, with whom I collaborated - very briefly - around 1981.

Now that they are ubiquitous, he does have one, but all he uses it
for is posting retarded comments on Usenet.

Not exactly true. It runs LTSpice, and I do use it to simulate circuits from time to time. And it runs Libre Office, which I use to edit the NSW IEEE newsletter a couple of time a year. It has a Linux partition, as has it's predecessors back to about 1999 when I installed the gEDA circuit design and layout package. These days I've got KiCad, which also runs under Windows, but I've not done much with it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 6:01:32 PM UTC+11, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:3544c5a5-d108-4696-
95c2-88dfbfd43e9e@googlegroups.com:

I was there when it was happening. BASIC didn't come into it.


The move from batch processing to time sharing most certainly did
involve BASIC. Sorry, punk, but you were not at Dartmouth.

In my first industrial job, back in 1970, we had a time-shared terminal in the lab that was supported by a Control Data computer on the other side of town. I used it write (and run) FORTRAN programs. During the training course, one of the instructors was unnecessarily rude about the code written by one of my colleagues, and I pointed out that it would compile to exactly the same machine code as my version - which it did. Fun.

BASIC was made available on those kinds of systems, but they did compile proper languages too.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 11:38:14 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

This is one of the major groups that brought us forward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYPNjSoDrqw

Was that a BASIC compiler or a BASIC interpreter ?

Implementing time sharing is easier with an interpreter, since you can
keep the interpreter resident all time and just swap out the limited
number of variables to mass storage at the end of time quantum. The
next time the application gets a quantum, just load the variables and
start reading the source code from disk and continue execution from
where it was.

BASIC was not the first attempt to give computing to the masses.

FORTRAN (FORmula TRAnsform) was an 1950's attempt.

COBOL was a similar attempt. According to Grace Hopper (the mother of
COBOL) the aim was that accountants could do their own programming.
For instance, the syntax allowed for a lot of fill words, so that
sentences looked like normal English sentences.

In reality, accounts started doing their own programming with
spreadsheets. It should also be noted that the formulas written into
spreadsheet cells do much of the programming that was previously done
with separate BASIC programs.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:10579f17-3d01-4b68-8556-c092b731c9e9@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 6:00:02 PM UTC+11,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:d88d0ceb-0c50-4983-94c3-b17e27d1e6a3@googlegroups.com:

The entire point of Basic was that it would run on tiny
computers, and it didn't change the world.

Bill Sloman is an abject idiot and has little grasp of computer
science, much less its history, even though he was around as it
evolved

and even got to watch someone use one a couple times.

DLUNU doesn't seem to have much of a clue about computer history.
He won't know who Alan Turing was, or what he might have bad to do
with Donald Watts Davies, with whom I collaborated - very briefly
- around 1981.

Now that they are ubiquitous, he does have one, but all he uses
it
for is posting retarded comments on Usenet.

Not exactly true. It runs LTSpice, and I do use it to simulate
circuits from time to time. And it runs Libre Office, which I use
to edit the NSW IEEE newsletter a couple of time a year. It has a
Linux partition, as has it's predecessors back to about 1999 when
I installed the gEDA circuit design and layout package. These days
I've got KiCad, which also runs under Windows, but I've not done
much with it.

AutoCAD bought Eagleware and it is free now. It is a Windows app
now. Better than both of the remaining Linux EDA apps. It started
out open though.

 

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
news:5d8i3ftv14mcvhvlpu40spj5u2tt1tek3n@4ax.com:

Was that a BASIC compiler or a BASIC interpreter ?

BASIC is a line by line interpreted language. There were
"compilers" made for it on *some* platforms.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:22db3c94-2628-4611-a2f2-490cd9be6b17@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 6:01:32 PM UTC+11,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:3544c5a5-d108-4696- 95c2-88dfbfd43e9e@googlegroups.com:

I was there when it was happening. BASIC didn't come into it.


The move from batch processing to time sharing most certainly
did
involve BASIC. Sorry, punk, but you were not at Dartmouth.

In my first industrial job, back in 1970, we had a time-shared
terminal in the lab that was supported by a Control Data computer
on the other side of town.

DTSS was 1964. D'oh!

I used it write (and run) FORTRAN
programs. During the training course, one of the instructors was
unnecessarily rude about the code written by one of my colleagues,
and I pointed out that it would compile to exactly the same
machine code as my version - which it did. Fun.

Unnecessarily rude... you mean like you are in this group so
often? Or some other version...

BASIC was made available on those kinds of systems, but they did
compile proper languages too.

You are as bad as Trump when it comes to admitting that you made
yet another improper assessment and attack.

*I* touted DTSS.

The *video* is titled referencing BASIC.

YOU made a stupid presumption, and even claimed I said something
else based on your presumption. And you still have yet to watch the
video. You brain is broken.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:10579f17-3d01-4b68-8556-c092b731c9e9@googlegroups.com:

and even got to watch someone use one a couple times.

DLUNU doesn't seem to have much of a clue about computer history.

It was my first major, dipshit.

> He won't know who Alan Turing was,

I knew about Turing *before* the excellent movie about him.

Again, you are an abject idiot.

Shame your bullshit isn't brief. It stinks up the place.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 8:04:04 PM UTC+11, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
news:5d8i3ftv14mcvhvlpu40spj5u2tt1tek3n@4ax.com:

BASIC was not the first attempt to give computing to the masses.

FORTRAN (FORmula TRAnsform) was an 1950's attempt.

Wrong. FORTRAN was for the original building sized computers, not
"the masses". The "masses" it "was for" was college computer science
and engineering students, and staff engineers at the companies using
the computers that were in the field. There were no computers in the
hands of "the masses" back then.

This misses the point. The original computer programmers programmed in machine language. Assembly languages made the process easier by letting you write easily remembered words which could be directly translated to the appropriate binary string.

FORTRAN was the first higher-level language which was compiled to create the appropriate sequences of binary strings.

The physical size of the computer didn't come into it. The fact that there weren't many of them initially limited the number of people who needed to write computer programs, but when integrated circuits made it a lot cheaper to build computers, the demand went up, and places like Dartmouth started churning outprogrammers. Their existence reflected the fact semiconductor technology had changed the world. They were an effect, not a cause.

If your computer history major didn't teach you that, you were being sold a line of goods, probably by somebody who put a high value on their own contribution.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
news:5d8i3ftv14mcvhvlpu40spj5u2tt1tek3n@4ax.com:

BASIC was not the first attempt to give computing to the masses.

FORTRAN (FORmula TRAnsform) was an 1950's attempt.

Wrong. FORTRAN was for the original building sized computers, not
"the masses". The "masses" it "was for" was college computer science
and engineering students, and staff engineers at the companies using
the computers that were in the field. There were no computers in the
hands of "the masses" back then.

 

On Tuesday, 4 February 2020 06:05:47 UTC, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

tabbypurr wrote in
news:0ebd20f8-5927-4cf5-8b2a-6d1436616ef0@googlegroups.com:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2020 01:40:00 UTC, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/03 5:13 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 6:57:19 AM UTC+11, John S
wrote:
On 2/2/2020 5:38 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
wrote:

This is one of the major groups that brought us forward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYPNjSoDrqw


Yes, I think so. That was a very interesting video.

I remember time-sharing and BASIC as well as Super BASIC. My
program allowed me to design very small high voltage
transformers in a few seconds rather than hours. And other
designs as well. That was in the early 60s.

Note that BASIC still exists in many forms and is very useful
for solving problems quickly. Power Basic comes to mind. I
think JL uses it for several purposes, like for his stock
parts inventory.

And people think that climate change denial propaganda is worth
propagating.

The fact that you can use BASIC and it it's variants to
eventually do what you could do faster with a more appropriate
language doesn't make a good choice.

DLUNU was claiming that the invention of BASIC represented some
kind of advance. Teaching lots of undergraduates to program was
a good idea, but that's it.


That's not unlike saying that teaching kids to read and write was
a good idea, but that's it. Probably just use reading and writing
to record cooking recipes - a waste of time!

It seems to me that allowing the average kid access to computers
sparked a major interest in these machines that would not have
developed anywhere near as fast.

In this matter I might fairly claim that you are the
denier...(ducking)

John ;-#)#

Funny that he doesn't get the entire point of basic & how it
changed the world.


He doesn't get it. It was not a trivial advancement, but even if
it was, it is still an advancment.

It enabled lots of kids to get into programming, resulting in lots of programmers, resulting in lots of software development later. What kinda dunce can't see that I don't know, but there ya go.

Just think where we would be had Edison not invented the "Edison
Screw Base" light bulb socket standard.

You'd use some other base. Swan's wasn't too practical. BC is but I don't know when it dates from. Now I do - 1870s.

Large or small, the pressed or spun metal, cheap bulb sockets
worked for many types of AC or DC powered "light bulb" type light
source. They were very easy to integrate with the glass bulbs too.
Many times all at the same time on the same line, the glass would get
sealed via torch, cool, and then the socket would get added and the
little center piece and get soldered all automated. And even the
testing too.

Other types experience a loosening of the connection. The screw
insured use in any orientation.

we don't have that issue with BC.

Been around a very long time too.

I'd bet that any school that has a course on computer science for a
junior high school aged child even today touches on BASIC, if not has
course paths that require its use as a lesson. Likely character
based games as well, and moving into the graphically capable
machines.

Computing today without basic would be significantly less advanced.


NT

 

On Tuesday, 4 February 2020 08:59:45 UTC, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

> video. You brain is broken.

too broken to get that his brain is broken. It's called NPD. Lots of vids on youtube about it for anyone that cba to read.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:3ec9c3c4-2f49-4603-aaa5-be43254a90cc@googlegroups.com:

If your computer history major didn't teach you that, you were
being sold a line of goods, probably by somebody who put a high
value on their own contribution.

You are still lost in your CONSTANT thinking that I missed something
or lack some knowledge you have. Fuck you, Billy. you retarded
fuckhead.