Well, it has one thing going for it: case insensitivity. That should be more common.
Since the language is so simple there is no need for case-sensitivity. Not if you want to get beginners frustrated when programming their first (and maybe last?) lines of code, at least.
Well at least one of those is fixed... The lines don't need to start with colons I just throw them out anyway
Please break that again. I stated it in my document so there is no need to fix it until the whole thing is done. The colons are there in TiBasic and I found them nice because you could write any crap into multiple lines without it being counted as a row of commands.
It could help people programming more complex programmes to keep their overview... example?
:if
(5=x)
//I use this space for writing some stuff down....
I can write as much stuff as I want to because everything between the "//" and the next colon wont be calculated.... I can split the commands aswell...
:[
:output
(
1,1,
"I use this line just for the text that's going to be displayed!"
)
:]
I'd find this comfortable.
* Goto (increasingly obsolete since the '60s and '70s)
Goto - I like to use it since 2004 - 96x64-1bit-display - increasingly obsolete since the '60s.
* No way to define functions (which are practically required for writing good code)
If I told my friend "I'm going to make you now everything about this language in 30 minutes" and get to "functions" and how to define and use them... he would switch off after sentence 2. And he wouldn't stupid doing that. He is just no programmer. Subprogrammes are just like... lines of code except you don't have to write them into your actual code directly. You put them elsewere and make the programme refer to "elsewhere" (where those lines are) with an exec(name) command. It just helps advanced users to programme more complex programmes without loosing sight of all the things important.
Structures limited to 100 elements in a dimension for no good reason
a.) you don't have to define (and keep in mind) all the sizes of your structures.
if we wanted to, we could allow 1000 or 1337 elements in each dimension. which leads us to:
b.) I don't see why users would need a single structure bigger than 100x100 elements. Maybe you need one for player positions and one for pixeldata but that should be it. If you still need more... write a subprogramme and find a way. the machine won't complain.
* Assignment is "#" (?) and goes from left to right (??)
I just take the TI's logic: Defining variables is rather like "I put THIS into THAT" and not like "THAT has the value of THIS now". It's a more down-to-earth logic imo. Not better but suitable for non-programmers. Also, that Volkswagen over there is painted green (?) and has a white (??) steering wheel.
If you are used to using the good old "x = 5"-method and other conventions ... Why don't you just programme in the language you know? That's great! Why riding a bike if you can ride a motorcycle?
I have no problem with a simple system that anybody can work with. That's great... but why make it painful for real programmers in the process?
Because programmers are on a much higher level already. They just don't need this language if they don't like it.
I can imagine riding a bike with training wheels must be pain in the a*** now... but back then they were the only things convincing me even to set a foot into that whole bycicle-riding-fuzz. :D
BaronCid
PS: I've found out that a pretty cool language I wanted to create already exists.
I wanted to make a powerful, fast, flexible, deep programming language without no useless knick-knack. Unfortunately someone already created it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2BDid you try it out already? I think so.