[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Date Index Thread Index Search archive:
Date:Mon Nov 13 01:21:08 1992 
Subject:Re: Ok, so pop *pop* may be a valid lang, but where's basic? 
From:Jeffrey D Martens 
Volume-ID:921113.11 

In article <1992Nov12.163410.12678@julian.uwo.ca> wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:
>Flame me all you want, but if some obscure UK language developed 20
>years ago can make it into a comp.lang group, why is basic still shit-upon 
>and relegated to the status of an alt group? (alt.lang.basic)?

Sounds to me as though BASIC's getting a little more respect than
it deserves.  Perhaps there's something at least marginally
interesting about pop.  You can't honestly say that about BASIC,
now, can you?