The reason? Whoever writes/wrote those examples is a BASIC weenie
(along with most OOPic users, although that may be changing, given
Java's popularity)

At 11:05 AM 2/18/2008, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>Virtually everything I have seen so far uses the BASIC syntax as
>opposed to C/Java syntax for code for the ooPIC. Is there a functional
>reason for this or is it purely personal preference?



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

--- In o...@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Porrett wrote:
>
> The reason? Whoever writes/wrote those examples is a BASIC weenie
> (along with most OOPic users, although that may be changing, given
> Java's popularity)
>
> At 11:05 AM 2/18/2008, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> >Virtually everything I have seen so far uses the BASIC syntax as
> >opposed to C/Java syntax for code for the ooPIC. Is there a
functional
> >reason for this or is it purely personal preference?
>

OR...

those people who use C (or Java) don't like the mangled OOPic
versions of the languages.

There is no functional reason for choosing one version over another.
However, unless a program in the C or Java version is both trivial
and obvious, I won't mess with it.

But, given that there is no functional reason for choosing C or Java,
why not just use Basic and appeal to a larger audience.

Richard



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Most of the appeal of BASIC is that it is All-Purpose. Many engineers
and scientists that I know tend to do their prototyping in BASIC, and
then hand it off to programmers to optimize for size and speed in
whatever language is best suited to the app. BASIC can do anything
other langauges can, just not as fast or compact. And BASIC is very
readable and easy to debug.
I seldom code in C tho I know it is faster blah blah. The 'speed'
issue tends to dissipate when we are using ever-more-powerful
processors, and what's a few nanoseconds between friends, anyway? ;)

--- In o...@yahoogroups.com, "rtstofer" wrote:
>
> --- In o...@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Porrett wrote:
> >
> > The reason? Whoever writes/wrote those examples is a BASIC
weenie
> > (along with most OOPic users, although that may be changing,
given
> > Java's popularity)
> >
> > At 11:05 AM 2/18/2008, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> > >Virtually everything I have seen so far uses the BASIC syntax as
> > >opposed to C/Java syntax for code for the ooPIC. Is there a
> functional
> > >reason for this or is it purely personal preference?
> > OR...
>
> those people who use C (or Java) don't like the mangled OOPic
> versions of the languages.
>
> There is no functional reason for choosing one version over
another.
> However, unless a program in the C or Java version is both trivial
> and obvious, I won't mess with it.
>
> But, given that there is no functional reason for choosing C or
Java,
> why not just use Basic and appeal to a larger audience.
>
> Richard
>



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

--- In o...@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Porrett wrote:
> Whoever writes/wrote those examples is a BASIC weenie
> (along with most OOPic users)
> ... Andy

Is this an appropriate comment?

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

At 09:04 PM 8/5/2008, scottmsavage wrote:
>--- In o...@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Porrett wrote:
> > Whoever writes/wrote those examples is a BASIC weenie
> > (along with most OOPic users)
> > ... Andy
>
>Is this an appropriate comment?

Yep, just keep removing context.

"The reason? Whoever writes/wrote those examples is a BASIC weenie
(along with most OOPic users, although that may be changing, given
Java's popularity)

At 11:05 AM 2/18/2008, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>Virtually everything I have seen so far uses the BASIC syntax as
>opposed to C/Java syntax for code for the ooPIC. Is there a functional
>reason for this or is it purely personal preference?"

Whoever wrote all of the examples programs WAS stuck in BASICland.

I can keep this up longer than you can. Besides, don't you have
better things to do? I sure do.
...Andy

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Andy, are you about done? It is starting to get a little boring.

--- In o...@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Porrett wrote:
>
> At 09:04 PM 8/5/2008, scottmsavage wrote:
> >--- In o...@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Porrett wrote:
> > > Whoever writes/wrote those examples is a BASIC weenie
> > > (along with most OOPic users)
> > > ... Andy
> >
> >Is this an appropriate comment?
>
> Yep, just keep removing context.
>
> "The reason? Whoever writes/wrote those examples is a BASIC weenie
> (along with most OOPic users, although that may be changing, given
> Java's popularity)
>
> At 11:05 AM 2/18/2008, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> >Virtually everything I have seen so far uses the BASIC syntax as
> >opposed to C/Java syntax for code for the ooPIC. Is there a
functional
> >reason for this or is it purely personal preference?"
>
> Whoever wrote all of the examples programs WAS stuck in BASICland.
>
> I can keep this up longer than you can. Besides, don't you have
> better things to do? I sure do.
> ...Andy
>

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Excuse me? Ask Scott if he's done. He's the one wasting hours on
the Yahoo website reading my old posts and starting all these new
threads. Like I already said, I have better things to do.

At 07:47 AM 8/6/2008, r_sadeika wrote:
>Andy, are you about done? It is starting to get a little boring.

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

--- In o...@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Porrett wrote:
> "BASIC weenie"
then
> "stuck in BASICland"

While I appreciate you toning it down a notch I really wish you would
stop with the derogatory comments all together.

> I can keep this up longer than you can. Besides, don't you have
> better things to do? I sure do.
> ...Andy

No. I don't have anything better to do. My customer's are my
livelihood and I will continue to correct erroneous information where
and when I find it.

Scott Savage
------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

--- In o...@yahoogroups.com, "r_sodeika" wrote:
> Andy, are you about done? It is starting to get a little boring.

Thanks for the support.

I would find it boring myself, except for the fact that there are -so-
many incorrect statements being made about the functionality of the
product that I feel it necessary to correct the situation.

Scott Savage
------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

At 10:02 AM 8/6/2008, scottmsavage wrote:
>No. I don't have anything better to do.

So much for "concentrate on the new Pic 24 / 32 versions of our products".
> My customer's are my
>livelihood and I will continue to correct erroneous information where
>and when I find it.

You are so transparent. All you've done is troll my old
posts. Prior to a few days ago, you didn't take any interest in any
information posted in this forum. By all means, carry on. I suggest
that the other members take advantage of your presence while it
lasts. Based on past history, it won't last for long.
...Andy

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

>> Is this an appropriate comment?
>
> Yep, just keep removing context.
>
> "The reason? Whoever writes/wrote those examples is a BASIC weenie
> (along with most OOPic users, although that may be changing, given
> Java's popularity)

A data point: I use the ooPIC in my classes with elementary school
students (grades 5-8). The kids prefer the Java/C-like syntax to the
BASIC syntax. They actively dislike the BASIC used by the Basic Stamp
2. The block delimiters and indentation style help them see the
structure and they like it. It helps them compartmentalize what we are
focusing on at that moment.

I certainly have a preference. I began as a programmer back in the
early 1970s. I was introduced to programming through FORTRAN, BASIC,
and IBM 360 assembly language (BAL). My introduction to Algol in 1974
was a life-changing experience. I quickly moved on from there to PL-I
and Pascal. (I worked on the UCSD Pascal project back in 1977.) I
can't imagine anyone wanting to stick with BASIC. Granted, its grammar
has become more block-structured over time but it is still not as
clear to me as Algol, Pascal, or C.

Brian Lloyd
Granite Bay Montessori School 9330 Sierra College Bl
brian AT gbmontessori DOT com Roseville, CA 95661
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.791.912.8170 (fax)

PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Guys,

I enjoy a technical boxing match as much as the next guy but can we
keep the tit-for-tat to a minimum? I realize some corked up
frustrations are being vented atm but after 169 or so messages in the
last 3 days, I think we're all ready to move on :)

There's a great potential here for round-robin discussion on upcoming
ooPic product development with Scott's recent activity but I'd rather
it stay moving in a positive direction.

my 2 cents.

Ryan

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

At 11:48 AM 8/6/2008, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>I began as a programmer back in the
>early 1970s. I was introduced to programming through FORTRAN, BASIC,
>and IBM 360 assembly language (BAL). My introduction to Algol in 1974
>was a life-changing experience. I quickly moved on from there to PL-I
>and Pascal. (I worked on the UCSD Pascal project back in 1977.)

Interesting - you and I largely used the same languages during the
same time period. Don't recall if I did any 360 assembly, or just 370.
...Andy

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

At 12:36 PM 8/6/2008, triplegorilla6 wrote:
>Guys,
>
>I enjoy a technical boxing match as much as the next guy but can we
>keep the tit-for-tat to a minimum? I realize some corked up
>frustrations are being vented atm but after 169 or so messages in the
>last 3 days, I think we're all ready to move on :)
>
>There's a great potential here for round-robin discussion on upcoming
>ooPic product development with Scott's recent activity but I'd rather
>it stay moving in a positive direction.

Agree on all counts. As I said, take advantage of his presence while
you can. Better to have him focus on your posts, rather than mine.
...Andy

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Ryan,
I agree with you completely, it seems like this Andy guy has a problem
with letting go. I would rather see what Scott Savage has to say, since
he is the one that will be providing the product.

--- In o...@yahoogroups.com, "triplegorilla6" wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> I enjoy a technical boxing match as much as the next guy but can we
> keep the tit-for-tat to a minimum? I realize some corked up
> frustrations are being vented atm but after 169 or so messages in the
> last 3 days, I think we're all ready to move on :)
>
> There's a great potential here for round-robin discussion on upcoming
> ooPic product development with Scott's recent activity but I'd rather
> it stay moving in a positive direction.
>
> my 2 cents.
>
> Ryan
>

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

>> My customer's are my
>> livelihood and I will continue to correct erroneous information where
>> and when I find it.
>
> You are so transparent. All you've done is troll my old
> posts. Prior to a few days ago, you didn't take any interest in any
> information posted in this forum. By all means, carry on. I suggest
> that the other members take advantage of your presence while it
> lasts. Based on past history, it won't last for long.

Andy,

Scott and I had a *long* talk on the phone. I beat him up pretty hard
over this issue. Scott comes across a *lot* differently on the phone
than he does in email. I suspect it is more of an issue of how he
writes vs. how he talks and thinks.

I have run a number of successful businesses and have a pretty good
feel for when someone is blowing smoke at me. I didn't get that vibe
from Scott on the phone. I did tell him that he really needs to be
proactive in both listening and communicating with his customers. So
far it appears that he is attempting to do just that. Of course, it
remains to be seen how he does in the long run, but for now, I think a
little positive feedback (an attaboy here) for a desired behavior
(communicating with us) is in order.

Anyway, I am certainly willing to take Scott at face-value right now
and think in terms of engineering solutions and problem solving rather
than emotions.

Brian Lloyd
Granite Bay Montessori School 9330 Sierra College Bl
brian AT gbmontessori DOT com Roseville, CA 95661
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.791.912.8170 (fax)

PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

On Aug 6, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Andrew Porrett wrote:

> At 11:48 AM 8/6/2008, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>> I began as a programmer back in the
>> early 1970s. I was introduced to programming through FORTRAN, BASIC,
>> and IBM 360 assembly language (BAL). My introduction to Algol in 1974
>> was a life-changing experience. I quickly moved on from there to PL-I
>> and Pascal. (I worked on the UCSD Pascal project back in 1977.)
>
> Interesting - you and I largely used the same languages during the
> same time period. Don't recall if I did any 360 assembly, or just
> 370.

The 370 was just coming on-line. As far as I recall, the instruction
sets were virtually identical. Regardless, I never used BAL on the
370, just PL-I. (I hated FORTRAN and COBOL equally.)

Brian Lloyd
Granite Bay Montessori School 9330 Sierra College Bl
brian AT gbmontessori DOT com Roseville, CA 95661
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.791.912.8170 (fax)

PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

At 03:54 PM 8/6/2008, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>Scott comes across a *lot* differently on the phone
>than he does in email. I suspect it is more of an issue of how he
>writes vs. how he talks and thinks.

I can relate to that.
>for now, I think a
>little positive feedback (an attaboy here) for a desired behavior
>(communicating with us) is in order.

Well, you know what most of his communicating has been so far, but I
figure he'll get back on track soon enough.
...Andy

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )