Ask Slashdot: Should All OSs Ship With a Programming Language Built In? 307
dryriver writes: If anybody remembers the good old Commodore 64, one thing stood out about this once popular 8-bit computer -- as soon as you turned it on, you could type in BASIC (Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code) and run it. You didn't have to install a programming language, an IDE and all that jazz. You could simply start punching code in, and the C64 would execute it. Now that we live in a time where coding is even more important and bankable than it was back in the 1980s, shouldn't operating systems like Windows 10 or Android also come with precisely this kind of feature? An easy-to-learn programming language like the old BASIC that greets you right after you boot up the computer, and gives you unfettered access to all of the computer's hardware and capabilities, just like was possible on the C64 decades ago? Everybody talks about "getting more people to learn coding" these days. Well, why not go the old C64 route and have modern OSs boot you straight into a usable, yet powerful, coding environment? Why shouldn't my Android phone or tablet come out of its box with a CLI BASIC prompt I can type code into right after I buy it from a store?
Serious? (Score:5, Funny)
This requires a serious answer?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why shouldn't my Android phone or tablet come out of its box with a CLI BASIC prompt I can type code into right after I buy it from a store?
Because it's a stupid fucking idea, that's why.
Everybody talks about "getting more people to learn coding" these days.
And those people are idiots. The only people who should be learning how to code are people who are actually interested in it and who have the intelligence required to actually be good at it, which, unfortunately, is only a very small percentage of the population.
Re: Serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Learning basic coding is not that difficult but what needs to happen first is a learning coding language in two forms verbose and compact, based upon logical sound extrapolations of the English language and English grammar and the maths language, a multinational standard learning language, that can be used through human society for exactly that purpose of teaching basic coding and then for those who choose to do so, extending it into professional coding.
Myopic psychopathic greed and anal retentive tech exe
Re:Serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
This requires a serious answer?
It deserves a one word answer, but I'll expand to 5 for politeness: we have the internet now
(so many options!)
Re:Serious? (Score:4, Funny)
This requires a serious answer?
It deserves a one word answer, but I'll expand to 5 for politeness: we have the internet now
Who cares about internet? I want to know what kind of masochist wants to type BASIC code on a cell phone keyboard and screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares about internet? I want to know what kind of masochist wants to type BASIC code on a cell phone keyboard and screen.
I'm guessing, the same kind of masochist who would come in to school on the weekends to type dozens of pages of poorly-dot-matrix-printed code out of magazines, into a TRS-80.
The fun part was debugging it. "Oh, that's a zero, not an 'O'. and that's a one, not a lower-case 'L'. And that's obviously a typo."
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing, the same kind of masochist who would come in to school on the weekends to type dozens of pages of poorly-dot-matrix-printed code out of magazines, into a TRS-80.
That's because there was nothing better at the time. We have much better options now.
Re: Serious? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How would Slashdot make money on the number of comments? All their visitors have ad blockers. Their only source of revenue are advertorials.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have an adblocker. I do run noscript which appears to be functionally the same in most cases, but that's because I don't like the kind of shit people do with javascript. I don't explicitly block ads because things need to get paid for.
Re: Serious? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Back i the 8 bit days BASIC was the bootloader. It was how you loaded other software, so if they didn't have BASIC they would have had to have something else.
Also a lot of commercial games were written in BASIC because at the time cross-development was expensive (workstation systems and the necessary hardware to download and debug code) and developing in other languages on machines with only kilobytes of RAM wasn't very practical. Having BASIC in ROM was necessary to make them useful.
Re:Serious? (Score:4, Informative)
well. it has a browser you can use to go to an online programming site and start programming in just about every language you can think of.
and any computer, windows, osx etc, do come with several scripting/programming languages you can use straight out of the box if you want.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Uh... hate to tell you this, but the cellular modem in your smart phone still uses the AT command set. No joke
https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Baseband_Commands
Re: (Score:2)
Computers will never be that cool again, but then I'll never be 12 again.
Re: (Score:2)
Given I didn't have a disk drive for my C64, no.
I did learn to program in Commodore Basic - but I started on the Vic-20, not the C64.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue with mobile devices is that you can't write a program for it without needing an additional device.
That is wrong, both Android and iOS are full with Apps for coding based on Python, Lua or JavaScript or variations of Basic and many many other languages.
Re: Yes, but... (Score:2)
> The issue with mobile devices is that you can't write a program for it
> without needing an additional device.
Really? I had Orbworks Pocket C for my Palm Pilot literally 20 years ago. I also had it for my first "smartphone" -- a Samsung SPH-i300.
Ditto, when I made the jump to Windows Mobile (PPC-6700).
iPhones took a while... but what would you expect from the same company that sold a glorified etch-a-sketch that needed a Lisa to actually *program* it back in 1984? ;-)
Android took a year or two, but e
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Sure it'd be great if Windows and Android shipped with such a programming environment
Windows ships with a browser that has JavaScript built-in.
You can also use that browser to visit plenty of online programming environments.
Or you can use that browser to download Visual Studio for free, which includes C++, C#, Java, Python, JavaScript, with editor, debugger, profiler, etc.
With a reasonable Internet connection, you can have all of this working in about two minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
With a reasonable Internet connection, you can have all of this working in about two minutes.
Installed, maybe (although VS is a gigantic download that took me closer to 20 minutes than 2, on a fast link). For Visual Studio, that will be followed by several days of figuring out how this massive, complicated IDE works, followed by more days of figuring out how to do even the simplest things in complicated languages like C++ or Java. It's a far cry from the BASIC ethos.
Python gets a lot closer with its own IDE and the simplicity of the language, but only for command-line programs. For some reason, as
Re: (Score:2)
It's a far cry from the BASIC ethos.
The hint is in the name. What you can achieve truly is a far cry from BASIC.
But visual studio just is one of many options. Eclipse truly is closer to 2min to get going. But I would challenge your assertion that you need days to "figure out" the massive complicated visual studio. You can literally get through the basics in 10min and be cranking out programs. Sure you won't know the ins and outs of complex debugging, but then that didn't even exist in the context of early BASIC so it's not a fair comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
My assertion is based on my own experience. My background is in electrical engineering, I've programmed in Basic, Pascal and Python in the past. I'm usually pretty quick picking up new skills, but getting up and running in Visual Studio with C# was a struggle.
Re: (Score:2)
'C64 that a kid could feasibly buy with their allowance'
We used Timex Sinclair 1000s, you could even save up for a cassette recorder for your drive. I painted a shit ton of house addresses on curbs to pay for it.
Don't they? (Score:2)
Linux and OSX both have bash, most installations of linux will also have some percentage of python and/or perl. OSX comes with python.
Even windows comes with some benighted things that meet the very minimum definition of programming languages. Last I checked .bat can do most basic things. I don't recommend it, but in the day it was what we had. They have that powershit thing that may or may not count, it's not what I'd recommend to any newb but its in there.
Re:Don't they? (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue isnt that computers dont come with programming languages, the issue is that programming for a modern operating systems is by necessity far more complex.
No you cant just change screen modes with a single command and then start writing to video memory with another... you need to create a window... then (in the windows case) you need to create a device context.. then you need to create a device independent bitmap or device dependent bitmap.. only then have you begun your journey doing what changing screen modes in BASIC with a single statement got you
The difference between the two is enormous. Not just in the volume of code, but also the volume of information the programmer needs to know.
It is not the lack of an included programming language... it is the lack of an included programming language that is both simple yet also powerful.
People might say "what about javascript"
The languages these days that most directly matches are stuff like Python and Julia.. but still, powerful isnt a fitting word choice.
Re: (Score:3)
Batch files are for scripting, not practical programming as suggested by the reference to BASIC being provided in ROM in PCs in the '80s. "In the day" you weren't stuck with batch files for "programming". That would be just sad. Turn on a C-64, an Apple II, a TI-99/4a, a ZX-81, heck, even early IBM PCs and you could start coding in BASIC.
While being in ROM I understand, I'm not sure why you're dissing shell script in favor of BASIC here. I remember BASIC. I used to program in BASIC on Apple II's. Shell has just as many of the constructs necessary and plenty of quality-of-life improvements over BASIC (Applesoft BASIC, at least).
Of course, the things we DO with our computers are much more complex nowadays, but if someone wants a parallel for the capabilities we had then (minus the ROM), it's there.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, easy to write an astronomical program that draws orbits on the screen with cmd shell.
Can you do the equivalent of ?2+2 out of the box on Windows without firing up the calculator? At least on *nix you have access to lots of utility programs so a script can call bc to add 2+2
Re: (Score:2)
easy to write an astronomical program that draws orbits on the screen with cmd shell.
This would not be easy on some BASIC computers either, such as the widely popular C64, due to lack of support for graphics modes and line drawing.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you do the equivalent of ?2+2 out of the box on Windows without firing up the calculator? At least on *nix you have access to lots of utility programs so a script can call bc to add 2+2
Wait? You're claiming that running a calculator program is better than running a calculator program?
But if it helps any, yes, I can run a script that calls bc on my Windows system.
Re: (Score:2)
Shell has just as many of the constructs necessary and plenty of quality-of-life improvements over BASIC
No it doesn't. Claiming it to be true doesnt make it so. As the other poster suggests, draw some orbits on screen with your CMD script. Go ahead, we'll wait while you find the necessary external tools necessary to "fit the specification" of drawing orbits.
If thats not the kind of thing YOU need with BASIC, then its your failing, and you likely have no idea what a classic BASIC was capable of therefore you shouldnt even be talking about it in the context of equal footing with, of all the damn stupid thing
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, in retrospect, it was. And there was no documentation or tutorials for the QBasic environment which came with DOS 6.2 either.
Simply No (Score:5, Insightful)
That time is gone, you cannot bring it back (Score:3)
I disagree. A plethora of choices is overwhelming. Where to begin?
Literally anywhere, you just pick one and go.
The people that want an OS to ship with a "basic prompt" are just longing for the return to a yesteryear that no longer exists, a world that we are infinitely far away from now. Even if you did ship with that BASIC what kid would use it? Absolutely none, they are using Scratch or Minecraft but would absolutely not tolerate a pure text interface in todays world... the magazines are all gone, rep
Re: (Score:2)
If you are overwhelmed by choices, you should go back to kindergarten. The real world is full of choices: for example, would you prefer a 1968 Ford Galaxie to a 1972 Volkswagen Beetle? or do you really want a new Bentley Continental? Or perhaps a cheeseburger?
If you can't tell the difference, then pick one at random.
Hello, Betteridge (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. But you should be able to get a programming environment of some sort for every device, ideally for free. And you pretty much can, so, mission accomplished?
Already there? (Score:2)
I don't know if trying to code on a tiny phone is worthwhile, but if you're reading this on a desktop, try hitting Shift+Ctl+I, then click on the "Console" tab. Right away you can start learning a somewhat sucky, but very marketable, language.
Re: (Score:3)
I tried that. All I got was a bunch of error messages. Perhaps your comment should be directed at the /. devs? Just the tail:
Keyframe rule ignored due to bad selector.
janrain-social.css:1784:19
Keyframe rule ignored due to bad selector.
janrain-social.css:1785:18
Unrecognized at-rule or error parsing at-rule â@-ms-keyframesâ(TM).
janrain-social.css:1798:15
Unrecognized at-rule or error parsing at-rule â@-o-keyframesâ(TM).
janrain-social.css:1833:14
Keyframe rule ignored due to bad selector.
janr
Re: (Score:2)
The input prompt is at the bottom below the error messages.
Try typing in something like: 2+2
Re: (Score:2)
Your humour detector needs re-calibrating.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if trying to code on a tiny phone is worthwhile
Not really, unless you have a folding keyboard. Anything less than a real keyboard is unbearable. But you can accomplish quite a bit with Tasker plus some tiny code snippets, regexps etc., which are not too painful.
As someone who started with Apple II and C64 ... (Score:3)
You didn't have to install a programming language, an IDE and all that jazz.
As someone who started with the Apple II and Commodore 64 and used those built-in BASIC languages a little (quickly moved to assembly language) ... no it does not need to ship with a language. It just has to let you install and run one. If that language comes from and is supported by the OS vendor at no charge that's great. However having to install a language is not a barrier to entry to programming. Its a skill you need to learn.
...
Seriously, look at the Mac App Store. Launch the App Store App, search for "Xcode", press the "Get" button. Compiler, debugger, IDE, docs,
Re:As someone who started with Apple II and C64 .. (Score:4, Insightful)
Or you could just use what OSX has by default, perl, python, ruby, tcl/tk, various shells and I can't even remember what else...
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could just use what OSX has by default, perl, python, ruby, tcl/tk, various shells and I can't even remember what else...
That's irrelevant to my point, the point being how trivial it is to install a programming language these days.
Also the user land BSD environment you refer to was nearly an optional download for Mac OS X as well. Originally it was there in the betas for developer convenience. The "plan" was to not include it in the default retail OS installation but make it freely available as an option. It would still have been on the retail OS CD. They choose to leave it in as a default. Nothing more than a minor conven
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "BSD Subsystem" was an optional component in the first few versions of OSX. It was no earlier than Tiger that it was made part of the base system. I think most people installed it anyway - it wasn't very big, and a fair few applications started to depend on it.
PowerShell (Score:2)
Now that the world is internet connected, it is less of an issue. You can quickly just download whatever you need. And Windows does have PowerShell. Before that, they had VBScript.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
even the commercial Unix, (HP/UX, Solaris, AIX) come with Perl these days
so it seems every desktop or server OS gets a kind of programming ability out of the box except Windows
JavaScript is the new Basic (Score:4, Interesting)
PICK O/S (Score:3)
Re: PICK O/S (Score:2)
To the author's point, a programming language _for the OS_ is, indeed, an incredibly useful feature. PICK took it one step further and exposed the entire configuration of the OS environment as a database. Being able to query the state of the system and then execute code based on it was, and still is, revolutionary IMHO.
Does it have (Score:2)
Too many sinful comments and the OS phones home?
There's a nugget of a point here (Score:5, Insightful)
OP is complaining about a valid situation that was a long time ago.
It's true that consumer computing was once an enthusiast's pastime. Virtually all 8-bit computers booted into a command prompt. Even in the 16-bit era, the Amiga came with ARexx and that had a powerful effect --- being able to glue your software together via ARexx ports. The enthusiast computing era was where every computer magazine was rammed with tutorials on how to program, or use complex emerging software.
When the Amiga died and gave way to the gloomy years of the PC. One of the things that irritated me most was that there was no culture of providing software for free as had been common on the Amiga. Everything was commercial, or paid shareware etc. It wasn't easy to make your own stuff. The joy and the tinker had been sucked out of everything.
But... that was a long time ago. The world is a very different place today and we're more empowered to code and build stuff than ever before. It's trivial to install free scripting languages, compiled languages, and --- vitally --- good code editors and IDEs. You want a programming console on every PC? Just hit F12 in the browser. What's different today than the 16-bit era is that everyone uses computers. Most people just want to use apps, some people want to code, for whatever reason, and it's easier than it has ever been.
As for wanting a CLI on Android, that's just daft. I mean, it has one anyway, you just ADB to the shell, but honestly, software development has moved a bit beyond 10 print "hello world".
Re: (Score:2)
When the Amiga died and gave way to the gloomy years of the PC.
Only if you ran Windows. Those of us who were running OS/2 or Linux in the early 90's still had lots of free software to choose from (with the added bonus that OS/2 also ran REXX, and later Object REXX and NetREXX).
Yaz
Re: (Score:2)
My Atari 400 booted to Atari Computer Memo Pad. To use Atari BASIC, one had to locate and insert the BASIC cartridge.
Modern browsers and dev tools. (Score:2, Interesting)
I would say that, for better or worse, hacking with JavaScript/HTML/CSS in a browser is the modern analog to C64/BASIC.
The internet is the environment that people buy computers to interact with far more than the OS, and the browser is the modern CLI.
Windows does come with a programming language (Score:2)
You can open a cmd and write Batch right out of the box. It's easy, it's fun, and you can transition to procedural programs from linear scripts when you're ready to learn about if branches and for loops.
I can't go on. I'm JUST KIDDING! I apologize to all the programmers who threw up in the back of their mouths.
But seriously, it'd be nice if every computer came with Python. Or something useful. I remember back when dinosaurs delivered the mail, Unix came with a C compiler, included with the distribution
Re: (Score:2)
No it dd not. The "internet" did not really exist at that time. The base compiler was free anyway, because we needed it to compile our kernels. Yes, when you bought a new machine, you usually built a hand tailored kernel for it. The high level optimizing compiler costed an arm and a leg, though.
Re: (Score:2)
But seriously, it'd be nice if every computer came with Python.
It takes 2 minutes to download and install it. If that's too much of a barrier, you're probably not going to be a good programmer anyway.
Should everyone have ... (Score:3)
... a violin in their home?
Re: (Score:2)
... a violin in their home?
No. That would be silly. This should be extended to any instrument in the violin family, such as a viola, cello, or string bass. I could perhaps consider other stringed instruments like guitars, banjos, mandolins, and ukuleles where the strings are to be plucked with the fingers or bowed. Nothing where the strings are hammered or plucked by a mechanism, such as harpsichords, hurdy gurdy, or pianos, should be considered sufficient to meeting this requirement. Not that people can't have them, they can h
Re: (Score:2)
Should everyone have a violin in their home?
Should everyones home have an atmosphere within which sound from instruments like violins can propagate?
The answer is Yes.
Re: Should everyone have ... (Score:2)
Everyone ought to have a glockenspiel. And many already do.
In old days many well to do middle class families had a piano in their home. Fewer people know how to play these days though.
Maybe they do (Score:2)
A good place for people to start is Bash, Zsh, Yash, or Powershell. Notepad, Nano, and Vi are often pre-installed.
One large difference is the complexity and undocumented nature of the hardware.
What might be more interesting is a system not much more complex than a Amiga or AtariST (and they are complex enough), but only a good bit faster. That way you can do some useful things with it. There are projects like the Standalone Vampire Amiga like systems. And the Atari has the Firebee. The Vampire v4 is said to
Why shouldn't my Android ... come with prmng lang (Score:3)
Back in the day ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Javascript (Score:3)
Javascript ships with all OS's of any note.
Bash ships with the vast majority of non-Windows systems.
Python ships on Macs and many Linuxes.
PowerShell ships with Windows.
What exactly are you looking for? You obviously are discounting these for some reason...
Re: (Score:2)
The C# and VB.NET compilers are not bundled with the operating system AFAIK. They can be downloaded for $0, but they require to agree to a different license.
This is different from PowerShell, JavaScript and batch files for which you can directly use source code to run programs with the base Windows install.
C64 wasn't powerful (Score:2)
C64 Basic's OPEN [devili.iki.fi] command - off hand, it doesn't show a way to detect whether or not a file exists without getting a file not found error, which is the case if the user gets to choose the filename. By default, such an error dumps back to the basic prompt.
Regardless of whether or not C64 Basic is powerful, it's not relevant unless proper instructions on handling a basic user-tier error are present. I did find a process for this, but it required an Internet search (something
Re: (Score:2)
Classic basic used to have an
on error goto [line number]
directive to set up an error handler. No idea about the VisualBasic mess, though.
Re: (Score:2)
They do (Score:2)
The OP mentions "OS"s, not hardware-level programming. As others have mentioned, virtually all modern computer operating systems have a programming environment built in to them, be it PowerScript or shell. While your phone is certainly a computer, iOS/Android are not "general purpose operating systems" -- smartphones are consumer electronics devices, for better or for worse. My set top box also has a computer inside it, but it's not a device I expect to be able to compile on out of the box.
The benefit of th
Necessity (Score:5, Informative)
When it comes down to it, the reason a C64, VIC 20, TI-99/4A, Apple II, TRS-80, Timex Sinclair, etc, launched straight into BASIC was because they really had no other option. For all intents and purposes, BASIC was the OS. ROM memory was expensive, and there just wasn't room for much of anything else but a simplistic interpreted environment. Otherwise you would have what amounts to a classic console game system - it couldn't do anything at all unless a ROM cartridge was present. Some systems, like the TI-99/4A, had such a primitive version of BASIC embedded that cartridges were released that contained.... Extended BASIC, which was more powerful and made better use of the available hardware. So the statement "unfettered access to the computer's hardware" is flat out inaccurate, because that depended on the specific computer. Even on systems like the C64, where you could essentially access all the computer's hardware, do you think POKEing and PEEKing machine code bytes directly to RAM is even a remotely good thing? How is that "easy-to-learn"? Heck, it's not even assembly code but raw machine code in integer form!
Worse, all the computers I mentioned above ran BASIC, but what was exactly was BASIC? A programming language that used line numbers? Well, no, because Amiga Basic (ironically developed by Microsoft) didn't use line numbers. Every one of the computers above used a different version of BASIC that wasn't remotely compatible. It was totally fragmented. When I was 10 I typed in dozens and dozens of BASIC programs from Compute! magazine (sorry mom and dad, for making you read them out to me so I could type them faster LOL), and every type of supported computer had its own program listing to suit their version of BASIC and what kinds of functionality it provided. It was a messy coupling of language limitations and hardware limitations all rolled into one.
I wax nostalgic all the time, but we've grown way beyond the requirement of a computer to boot into a primitive console-based programming language because that is the only option hardware limitations would allow. There are hundreds if not thousands of ways to write and run modern programming languages on modern computers for free.
First we must define our terms (Score:2)
What is an operating system? What is a programming language?
The examples of the old Commodore systems coming with BASIC burned in the ROMS was given. What of MS-DOS? That's an operating system, it is not? Would creating batch files be considered "programming"?
Is a programming language something that has to be compiled? What features does this language have to support to be considered sufficient to meet this requirement? What if all it can do is allow people to write "hello world" to the screen?
I would
Re: (Score:2)
What of MS-DOS?
Came with either GWBASIC or BASICA. (which depended on if you had either an IBM PC or a clone, and in the case of the real deal IBM machine, did not have the ROM)
These are BASICS written by the same company as the other BASICS people are talking about, and are "mostly" compatible with each other. In fact, here is a nice list of many of the BASIC's written by this same company:
Altair BASIC (MITS Altair and other S-100 computers)
Amiga BASIC (Commodore Amiga family)
Applesoft BASIC (Apple II family)
Ata
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
don't forget the Sinclair machines of the 80s (Z80 based)
That was MBASIC. Another Microsoft BASIC, just like on the Commodores and the Apples.
Re: (Score:2)
They do, it's called a browser (Score:2)
Open Firmware (Score:2)
Sun SPARCs, Power PC Macs, OLPC XO-1, and other computers using Open Firmware as their boot loaders provided access to the built in forth during their boot sequences. As an evolutionary step they required a timely esc press, keyboard mudras, or more complex unlocking process (OLPC) but it was rather fun to type forth in at a big ol' prompt on the console to poke around the hardware and PCI drivers.
While lamenting ready access to programming languages why not wax nostalgic over the loss of the ability to ty
Remember SCO? (Score:3)
I had the misfortune of trying to set up a web server (NCSA) on an Intel PC running SCO Unix back in 199[mumble]. A C compiler was optional. SCO shipped a Unix system with no compiler. Fucking SCO. No compiler.
Yeah, that's about when I developed a drinking problem. In C.
k.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between then and now is that then, they did it out of greed, now they do it because 99.9% of the people that use a computer dont want to ever write even a single line of code.
Mainstream computers didn't boot into BASIC (Score:2)
Computers weren't intended to teach BASIC because they booted into it. The Apple, Commodore, Amiga etc. were successful because they all either booted directly into a friendly UI or you could insert a floppy/tape and with a simple command get to your program. It's also why Microsoft became popular, you got into DOS and typed in wp to get to WordPerfect or win to get into Windows and that's all the majority of people knew about computers.
Computers still come with programming languages. Shell scripting and Ba
Should, but won't (Score:2)
The industry doesn't want the average Joe writing code, because if he's doing that he's not viewing ads or doing something worthy of tracking, and he might stumble into doing something disruptive. The industry wants the average person to think of computing devices as appliances, not tools. Mobile devices are for consumption, not production.
Whatever language your os is written (Score:2)
Which boils down to C and a very few other ones.
This is a good idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What OS comes with Excel? I'm not aware of any.
Re: open source (Score:2)
AMOS 2 is nearly here!
https://www.patreon.com/franco... [patreon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not the language. It is the environment. Those old machines that booted to basic didnt just boot to a programming language... they booted to a programming language with full control over the machine.. obviously this sort of full control of a machine must be virtual on a modern operating system... but thats not meaningfully different...
you la
Re: (Score:2)
cd C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework64\v4*\ /?
csc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)