With Lua and Python embeddable, is there a place for Basic?

Question

I started off programming in Basic on the ZX81, then BASICA, GW-BASIC, and QBasic. I moved on to C (Ah, Turbo C 3.1, I hardly knew ye...)

When I got started in microcontrollers I regressed with the BASIC Stamp from Parallax. However, BASIC is/was awesome because it was so easy to understand and so hard to make a mistake. I moved on to assembly and C eventually because I needed the additional power (speed, capacity, resources, etc.), but I know that if the bar was much higher many people would never get into programming microcontrollers.

I keep getting an itch to make my own on-chip BASIC interpretor, but I wonder if there's need for BASIC now that Lua and Python are easily embeddable, and just as approachable as BASIC.

• What, if any, are the advantages BASIC has over other languages?
• Why is it still around?
• If I decide to make a general purpose microcontroller board with an interpreter, is there any reason to make a version of BASIC?

Plenty of other languages are considered dead, but BASIC just keeps hanging on.

Answer 1

[This may come off sounding more negative than it really is. I'm not saying Basic is the root of all evil, others have said that. I'm saying it's a legacy we can afford to leave behind.]

"because it was so easy to understand and so hard to make a mistake" That's certainly debatable. I've had some bad experiences with utterly opaque basic. Professional stuff -- commercial products -- perfectly awful code. Had to give up and decline the work.

"What, if any, are the advantages Basic has over other languages?" None, really.

"Why is it still around?" Two reasons: (1) Microsoft, (2) all the IT departments that started doing VB and now have millions of lines of VB legacy code.

"Plenty of other languages are considered dead..." Yep. Basic is there along side COBOL, PL/I and RPG as legacies that sometimes have more cost than value. But because of the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" policy of big IT, there they sit, sucking up resources who could easily replace it with something smaller, simpler and cheaper to maintain. Except it hasn't "failed" -- it's just disproportionately expensive.

30-year old COBOL is a horrible situation to rework. Starting in 2016 we'll be looking at 30-year old MS Basic that we just can't figure out, don't want to live without, and can't decide how to replace.

"but basic just keeps hanging on" It appears that some folks love Basic. Others see it as yet another poorly-designed language; it's advantages are being early to market and being backed by huge vendors (IBM, initially). Poorly-design, early-to-market only leaves us with a legacy that we'll be suffering with for decades.

I still have my 1965-edition Dartmouth Basic manual. I don't long for the good old days.