Originally Posted by beezle
I've not seen line numbers in a basic dialect for years. As for data types, perhaps I've missed something, but ints, floats, strings, words, and long words (where relevant) are supported by pretty much any basic I've seen in an equally long time, along with structs (or equivalents,... Newtypes for blitz for eg.). Not sure where the idea of limited naming comes from either,... haven't encountered that in my 35 years of programming. No need for things to be static either in my experiences.
As for program flow/structure,... does anyone use things like goto or gosub anyway? Most basics I've used can call procedures/functions.
So you select a BASIC inspired language and think that is representative?
Then you still have the problem of non-standard extensions. You aren't writing BASIC code - you are writing *basic code.
Most extensions are awful BTW, I stopped using BlitzBasic (the modern PC version) as not only the syntax but the semantics was horrible for anything complex.
Also, most basics these days let a user directly use system libraries, so even basics use something other than basic for most functions (even if the author isn't really aware of it).
To each their own, but it seems some people still liken basic to versions from a few decades ago (although even then they started evolving). While syntaxes aren't dissimilar, they're pretty different beasts to the very early dialects.
Which was one of my points. You aren't really talking about BASICs, you are talking about new languages that are really Pascal with a less structured syntax.