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)