Author Topic: Microsoft releases SmallBasic for Newbie Programmers (Read 28048 times)

icekin · « **on:** November 15, 2008, 08:13 PM »

MS has released a Small Basic Compiler and IDE for those looking to get started with programming. I have yet to try it and while it might not compare to C++ just yet, it has the lowest barrier to entry of any programming language I've seen so far with only 15 keywords.

From the Small Basic Website:
Small Basic is a project that's aimed at bringing "fun" back to programming. By providing a small and easy to learn programming language in a friendly and inviting development environment, Small Basic makes programming a breeze. Ideal for kids and adults alike, Small Basic helps beginners take the first step into the wonderful world of programming.
Small Basic derives its inspiration from the original BASIC programming language, and is based on the Microsoft .Net platform. It is really small with just 15 keywords and uses minimal concepts to keep the barrier to entry as low as possible.
The Small Basic development environment is simple, yet provides powerful modern environment features like Intellisense™ and instant context sensitive help.
Small Basic allows third-party libraries to be plugged in with ease, making it possible for the community to extend the experience in fun and interesting ways.

Small Basic Homepage and Download Link

Please post some feedback if you have taken it for a spin.

mahesh2k · « **Reply #1 on:** November 16, 2008, 08:15 AM »

I'll give it try, nice find

f0dder · « **Reply #2 on:** November 16, 2008, 06:00 PM »

Friends don't let friends use BASIC!

It is possible to write OK structured code with a BASIC flavor like Visual Basic, problem is that the language, IDE, and the type of programmers it attracts usually lead to... horrible... code. And sometimes, irreversible brain damage. Haven't looked at SmallBasic, but doubt it's any different

mahesh2k · « **Reply #3 on:** November 17, 2008, 02:50 AM »

And sometimes, irreversible brain damage.

Now i need to know what is wrong with Basic? I mean small basic looks less headache to me though $:-\$

justice · « **Reply #4 on:** November 17, 2008, 03:08 AM »

Code: Text [Select]

GraphicsWindow.BackgroundColor = "Black" 
GraphicsWindow.MouseDown = OnMouseDown 
 
Sub OnMouseDown 
  pic = Flickr.GetRandomPicture("mountains, river") 
  GraphicsWindow.DrawResizedImage(pic, 0, 0, 640, 480) 
EndSub

ha fantastic

It actually seems to be really similar to Visual Basic .NET in syntax which should pose no problem once you've grown out of smallbasic, which is probably the aim of it. Great idea and interesting IDE too.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #5 on:** November 17, 2008, 03:50 AM »

And sometimes, irreversible brain damage.
-f0dder (November 16, 2008, 06:00 PM)

Isn't that the very point of learning to program ?

cranioscopical · « **Reply #6 on:** November 17, 2008, 06:59 AM »

And sometimes, irreversible brain damage.
-f0dder (November 16, 2008, 06:00 PM)

Isn't that the very point of learning to program ?
-Carol Haynes (November 17, 2008, 03:50 AM)

It certainly is, and it works too... look what happened to me

mrainey · « **Reply #7 on:** November 17, 2008, 07:51 AM »

I'll rely on Emergence BASIC until they pry it out of my cold dead fingers ...

MilesAhead · « **Reply #8 on:** February 17, 2009, 12:01 PM »

If it don't have stuff like:
defint a-z
130: If x < y then goto 150
140: do something stupid here
150: yadda yaddda

then it just ain't the same!

With GWBasic he who has the most gotos wins!!

(Not to mention the joy of running the automatic line renumbering thingy)

tide · « **Reply #9 on:** February 18, 2009, 12:19 AM »

Miles, it sounds like you'd just LOVE NBASIC! (sylvaware.home.mindspring.com)

MilesAhead · « **Reply #10 on:** February 19, 2009, 09:53 PM »

Heh heh. I think there was an XBasic or something out there that was actually pretty good. The guy put it in public domain or something. Guess if I'm gonna' do a Basic I'd do VB 6 since I have it. I'm lazy so I like to just drag the buttons and junk onto a form.

ljbirns · « **Reply #11 on:** February 20, 2009, 08:23 AM »

Is TI basic still available ?

kyrathaba · « **Reply #12 on:** February 23, 2009, 11:47 AM »

I still have the old QBasic saved on a CD. Looking at the environment and what can be done with it, after having used C# for the past three years, makes it seem clunky; but I suppose that, at the time it came out, it was impressive enough.

MilesAhead · « **Reply #13 on:** February 23, 2009, 04:21 PM »

Yeah it seems MS has this fixation with having some kind of large runtime on your machine so that the apps can look small. I had QB 3.0 that I messed with before doing Turbo Pascal. Most of my programs were tiny if you didn't compile as stand-alone.

Even now with a lot of apps I like to use Delphi 5. Nice stand-alone executable. C# makes doing some stuff easier, esp. directory searches and collections and that type of thing. Sometimes though it's nice to be able to copy an exe file and know it will work from Win9x all the way to Vista64.

I remember when I first got Turbo Pascal I thought is was way faster than QB until I realized that float was the default numeric type in QB. If you declared the loop variables as integers things went along at a better clip.

otoh I never saw a Delphi shell extension demo that worked. Most of 'em crashed right away. Just have to use VC++ 6 for shell it seems. Pretty weird having to code your own FileExists() functions though. Even if it is an inline it seems pretty lame to have to do it yourself.

f0dder · « **Reply #14 on:** February 24, 2009, 12:31 AM »

MilesAhead: it's not a "fixation with having some kind of large runtime on your machine so that the apps can look small", it's about code re-use and not bloating applications unnecessarily. Delphi and BCB can (and should!) link dynamically to the VCL too, and iirc that used to be the default as well.

As for not having a FileExists(), C give you libc and C++ additionally gives you the STL (aka libc++). That's the only guarantees you have, although you often get POSIX and platform vendor extensions as well (iirc Borland C++ doesn't/didn't mark extensions as such, leading people to think that C had gotoxy() and the likes).

MilesAhead · « **Reply #15 on:** February 24, 2009, 10:18 AM »

The code reuse is using the DLLs that are in windows. Trouble is there are more and more versions of this small code reuse. Pretty soon we'll have 20 versions of .NET about 1/2 dozen of each Windows DLL and a whole bunch of COM and DCOM servers on the system just in case something might use it. No Wonder my Vista64 with very few apps and almost no data of my creation backs up to over 30 GB after compression! So much for keeping it small.

f0dder · « **Reply #16 on:** February 24, 2009, 11:05 AM »

Code re-use is simply re-using files - whether they're part of Windows or not (and originally in the Win9x days, the VB runtimes were not shipped with Windows).

And you don't need "a dozen of each DLL file" - only if you add something (or make changes) to it's interface.

.NET is a bit bad, I wonder why it's so big - and whether you need all the different .net versions or if eg. the 3.5 framework also supports all older versions.

Vista does include a lot of junk by default that most people don't need, which is a shame. And if your backup program doesn't know about hard- and symlinks, it's going to make a lot of duplicate data copies...

kyrathaba · « **Reply #17 on:** March 11, 2009, 06:50 PM »

.NET is a bit bad, I wonder why it's so big - and whether you need all the different .net versions or if eg. the 3.5 framework also supports all older versions.

The latest version, .NET 3.5, is backward compatible with versions 1.0 and 2.0 in most cases. There are some deprecated functions, but on balance backward compatibility is pretty good, in my experience. If you are a developer, all of the MS IDEs offer a project conversion wizard that updates projects to be compatible with the latest framework.

Pretty soon we'll have 20 versions of .NET...

I very seriously doubt that. The .NET Framework 3.5 is incredibly extensive. I don't envision a slew of further versions beyond 3.5; but we'll see.

f0dder · « **Reply #18 on:** March 11, 2009, 07:10 PM »

.NET is a bit bad, I wonder why it's so big - and whether you need all the different .net versions or if eg. the 3.5 framework also supports all older versions.

The latest version, .NET 3.5, is backward compatible with versions 1.0 and 2.0 in most cases. There are some deprecated functions, but on balance backward compatibility is pretty good, in my experience. If you are a developer, all of the MS IDEs offer a project conversion wizard that updates projects to be compatible with the latest framework.
-kyrathaba (March 11, 2009, 06:50 PM)

Does that mean I can uninstall all previous .NET versions and use 3.5 to run applications targetting, say .NET 2.0?

Lashiec · « **Reply #19 on:** March 11, 2009, 07:17 PM »

.NET 3.5 also installs 2.0

I very seriously doubt that. The .NET Framework 3.5 is incredibly extensive. I don't envision a slew of further versions beyond 3.5; but we'll see.
-kyrathaba (March 11, 2009, 06:50 PM)

.NET 4.0 was announced in the last PDC so...

Josh · « **Reply #20 on:** March 11, 2009, 07:24 PM »

Wait a minute, does this mean we can expect FARR v 3.1.4.1.3.5.1.2.34.192891 beta 1 aplha 4 gamma 89 smallbasic edition? COOL!

kyrathaba · « **Reply #21 on:** April 17, 2009, 08:56 PM »

.NET 3.5 also installs 2.0

.NET 3.5 is a superset of .NET 2.0.

Does that mean I can uninstall all previous .NET versions and use 3.5 to run applications targetting, say .NET 2.0?

Yes.

MilesAhead · « **Reply #22 on:** April 17, 2009, 11:34 PM »

.NET 3.5 also installs 2.0

I very seriously doubt that. The .NET Framework 3.5 is incredibly extensive. I don't envision a slew of further versions beyond 3.5; but we'll see.
-kyrathaba (March 11, 2009, 06:50 PM)

.NET 4.0 was announced in the last PDC so...
-Lashiec (March 11, 2009, 07:17 PM)

Don't forget the minor updates. Like 3.51a SP3.

f0dder · « **Reply #23 on:** April 18, 2009, 02:40 PM »

...except earlier dotNET versions don't want to uninstall, saying there's applications that need 'em - hmm!

kartal · « **Reply #24 on:** April 18, 2009, 10:37 PM »

Because of .net versions uninstalling mess I needed to reinstall my entire system today. I am not sure if I have any love left for .net. I know what that "." stands for now.