-----Original Message----- From: vcf-midatlantic [mailto:vcf-midatlantic- bounces@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org] On Behalf Of Evan Koblentz via vcf-midatlantic Sent: 17 January 2017 06:41 To: Vcf <vcf-midatlantic@lists.vintagecomputerfederation.org> Cc: Evan Koblentz <evan@snarc.net> Subject: [vcf-midatlantic] Perhaps I asked the wrong question...
After posting my assembly-for-newbs question, it occurred to me that perhaps I should be asking this instead: with no experience other than LOGO and then BASIC, which (period 1980s) language should I learn next? Was it normal to go from BASIC directly to assembly (is BASIC enough preparation), or were people better off getting some in-between experience with a language such as Pascal or something else?
Keep in mind that my natural aptitude is liberal arts, not math. :)
Evan As others have said I don't think there was any natural progression. On many machines, (and on many budgets) buying a compiler or interpreter was a major investment. I bought an Atari STE around its launch date (1985) because there was a free "C" compiler available, and I had written "B" at work. Also it had MIDI ports and a flat address space unlike the 8086 with segment registers. I don't think PASCAL was widely used. I don't ever recall any one using LOGO but of course it depended on the environment you were working in. I think folks tended to learn one language, and then assembler when they couldn't do what they wanted in a high level language. Of course the problem with assembler is that each machine has its own, 6502, 6800 and 6809 are similar as are 8080 and z80. But z80 and 6809 assembler programmers may live on different planets.. Dave