Rosetta Code:Village Pump/FBSL Categorization Question: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{Vptopic |topic=FBSL Categorization Question |summary=Why not let FBSL stay alone? }} Hello community, I've just noticed some activity going on to group various BASIC diale...") |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
I've just noticed some activity going on to group various BASIC dialects into a common BASIC branch in the language tree of certain tasks. It being generally a positive idea which obviously targets better readability and ease of language tree navigation, I wouldn't however consider it reasonable to place such true multi-syntax languages as [[FBSL]], or interoperative languages like [http://terralang.org/ Terra], [http://luajit.org/dynasm.html LuaJIT/DynASM] and a few others, into any particular side branch of the tree. They are too, well, extraordinary for that, and an unbecoming neighborhood may do such languages a disservice of misleading their potential users. Yup, it '''is''' difficult to be different, as [[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] once said. ;) |
I've just noticed some activity going on to group various BASIC dialects into a common BASIC branch in the language tree of certain tasks. It being generally a positive idea which obviously targets better readability and ease of language tree navigation, I wouldn't however consider it reasonable to place such true multi-syntax languages as [[FBSL]], or interoperative languages like [http://terralang.org/ Terra], [http://luajit.org/dynasm.html LuaJIT/DynASM] and a few others, into any particular side branch of the tree. They are too, well, extraordinary for that, and an unbecoming neighborhood may do such languages a disservice of misleading their potential users. Yup, it '''is''' difficult to be different, as [[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] once said. ;) |
||
[[FBSL]] is exactly as much "BASIC" as it is "assembly" or "C". Why aren't assemblers grouped in a branch? Why aren't C clones (C, C++, C#) grouped either? Markup languages? Esoteric languages? Then why not let FBSL stay alone in the main trunk? At least for fear lest someone rewrite the FBSL solutions in thoroughbred C and claim C kindred. :) |
[[FBSL]] is exactly as much "BASIC" as it is "assembly" or "C". Why aren't assemblers grouped in a branch? Why aren't C clones (C, C++, C#) grouped either? Markup languages? Esoteric languages? Then why not let FBSL stay alone in the main trunk? At least for fear lest someone rewrite the FBSL solutions in FBSL's thoroughbred Dynamic C and claim C kindred. :) |
||
Kind regards, --TheWatcher 03:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC) |
Kind regards, --TheWatcher 03:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 04:04, 11 November 2013
This is a particular discussion thread among many which consider Rosetta Code.
Summary
Why not let FBSL stay alone?
Discussion
Hello community,
I've just noticed some activity going on to group various BASIC dialects into a common BASIC branch in the language tree of certain tasks. It being generally a positive idea which obviously targets better readability and ease of language tree navigation, I wouldn't however consider it reasonable to place such true multi-syntax languages as FBSL, or interoperative languages like Terra, LuaJIT/DynASM and a few others, into any particular side branch of the tree. They are too, well, extraordinary for that, and an unbecoming neighborhood may do such languages a disservice of misleading their potential users. Yup, it is difficult to be different, as Paddy3118 once said. ;)
FBSL is exactly as much "BASIC" as it is "assembly" or "C". Why aren't assemblers grouped in a branch? Why aren't C clones (C, C++, C#) grouped either? Markup languages? Esoteric languages? Then why not let FBSL stay alone in the main trunk? At least for fear lest someone rewrite the FBSL solutions in FBSL's thoroughbred Dynamic C and claim C kindred. :)
Kind regards, --TheWatcher 03:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)