#protobasic

OOP is un-necessary complexity. A (very) long time ago, I had posted some questions in a group somewhere about why BASIC isn't as popular as it once was and why people aren't more willing to write their own games and applications. At this point I did not keep accurate notes. If I did, they were lost to time. As part of my protoBASIC project I went back through my notes and pieced together what I thought were some of the best reasons put forward about why we need protoBASIC.

There is a concerning trend in the world of software development - a decline in personal software creation. This shift can be attributed to various factors. While pre-packaged software has undoubtedly made life easier, it often fails to meet specific requirements, leaving numerous untapped possibilities. Relying solely on existing software limits innovation and customization. Unfortunately, many individuals are unaware of the power and potential of creating their own software. Engaging in programming activities offers intellectual stimulation and fulfillment, contrasting with passive consumption of media. Popular programming languages like Java, Perl, and C++ pose challenges with their complexity and steep learning curves, deterring aspiring programmers. These languages are not designed for the average person, resembling specialized tools for specific groups. Modern computers no longer come equipped with user-friendly programming languages, unlike the past when BASIC made coding accessible to anyone. Understanding programming is essential for computer literacy, allowing individuals to actively engage and unleash the full potential of computers. Off-the-shelf software often falls short of meeting specific requirements, and there are countless undiscovered practical software applications. Unfortunately, many individuals are unaware of their ability to create their own software, missing out on the untapped potential and intellectual stimulation offered by programming when compared to passive activities.

BASIC was and still is a language for empowering users.

BASIC comprises a compact set of essential commands. Mastering these commands should enable anyone to be productive in any version of BASIC within minutes or otherwise it deviates from its essence.

The addition of new commands should be approached with caution.

BASIC programmers should not be compelled to incorporate GUI elements into their programs.

Understanding complex data types should not be a prerequisite for writing BASIC programs.

Interactivity, whether through a command line or innovative features, should be inherent in BASIC.

Extensions to any BASIC dialect should not feel like an entirely different language, causing confusion for those familiar with BASIC.

Understanding the principles of safe driving and self-sufficiency applies not only to cars but also to computers. Learning programming enables individuals to harness the full potential of computers, shifting them from passive consumers to active users. To tackle the widespread problem of unnecessary complexity, especially in object-oriented programming (OOP), I am developing a language that prioritizes user experience from beginning to end. It aims to assist users by offering a straightforward operating system or programming language that facilitates the execution of basic tasks without unnecessary complexity or distracting visual elements.

When we reflect on the history of BASIC, various influential flavors come to mind, including Benton Harbor BASIC, TRS-80 BASIC, Applesoft BASIC, Commodore BASIC, MBASIC, and GW-BASIC. These early Microsoft variations shared core commands such as LET, PRINT, INPUT, GOTO, GOSUB, RETURN, READ, DATA, IF/THEN, FOR/NEXT, DIM, OPEN, CLOSE, as well as essential functions like VAL, SIN, LOG, LEN, MID$, LEFT$, RIGHT$, STR$, and more. It is worth noting that all of these versions were command line interpreters, an interactive feature that is often overlooked in modern iterations of BASIC. The interactivity aspect played a vital role in making BASIC approachable and easy to learn. Unfortunately, newer implementations of BASIC lack this crucial feature. In my current project, I am developing a new version of BASIC that reintroduces interactive capabilities. Despite the existence of an ANSI standard for BASIC, it has largely been disregarded by the BASIC community. Microsoft's QBASIC emerged as the de facto standard due to its widespread popularity, overshadowing newer versions like Visual BASIC, especially among casual users and hobbyists. One possible reason for QBASIC's enduring success among hobbyists is the inclusion of an immediate mode, which resembles the interactivity of a command line interpreter.

Much of the 8-bit era and some of the 16-bit era had been defined by the proliferation and utilization of the BASIC programming language and simple Disk Operating Systems.

Think CP/M. Think Dartmouth BASIC.

Donald E. Knuth defined protoprogramming as a method of exploring and developing algorithms by working with a simplified version of a problem. The idea is to start with a small, basic version of a problem and to build a quick and dirty implementation of a potential solution. This allows the programmer to experiment and iterate rapidly, testing different approaches and refining the algorithm until it works effectively.  Knuth emphasizes that protoprogramming is an iterative process, and that it should be used as a way of exploring ideas and testing different approaches to a problem. He also notes that protoprogramming can be combined with literate programming techniques to create well-documented, readable programs that are easy to understand and maintain.  Prototyping is often associated with early or initial versions of a software application development or algorithm design but protoBASIC is defined as the beginning constructs of programming language design, specifically based on the BASIC programming language.  As far as I know, "protoBASIC" is not a widely used or recognized term in the field of language or operating system design and there are no established methodologies or practices associated with it. Nor is it, yet, a known language design.  It is now. However, if we interpret the prefix "proto" to mean "early" or "primitive," we could define protoBASIC as an approach to creating a very-generic BASIC language based prototyping language that prioritizes simplicity, minimalism, and efficiency over complex, feature-rich programming languages and frameworks.  In practice, protoBASIC might include using low-level programming algorithms or design techniques, writing code by hand rather than relying on automated tools, and focusing on creating efficient, lightweight toolchains or frameworks that can create applications or operating systems which can run on low-powered devices or in resource-constrained environments. Thus, protoBASIC might involve rapidly creating a prototype or proof-of-concept programming language to test out ideas or evaluate potential solutions.

A "prototyping language" based on the protoprogramming principle refers to a programming language suitable for quickly prototyping software solutions. It is easy to learn, use, and offers interactivity and flexibility for rapid experimentation and iteration. For example, BASIC, such as the original Dartmouth BASIC or TinyBASIC by Dr. Li-Chen Wang, can be considered a prototyping language. It has a simple syntax and allows for swift development of small programs. BASIC was initially designed for beginners and served as a prototyping language for early microcomputers. Its simplicity and interactivity make it ideal for rapid prototyping and testing of ideas and algorithms. However, for larger and more complex applications, more powerful languages with stronger data typing and better performance may be required. By breaking down the functions into categories like GRAPHICS, SOUND, STRINGS, ARRAYS, ARITHMETIC, INPUT-OUTPUT, FILE MANAGEMENT, VARIABLES, and MATRICES, and adapting them as needed, BASIC can cater to different computer systems of the 80s or even a combination of them. Keeping the core language simple and tangible provides flexibility for programmers. With adaptations, BASIC can now be better suited for larger programs that require stronger data typing, improved performance, security, and functionality. The limitations of BASIC in terms of speed and memory were constraints of the machines it ran on, but modern computing capabilities have far surpassed those limitations. However, the introduction of GUIs diminished the relevance of text-based interpreters, despite BASIC remaining popular. Imagine the possibilities if the BASIC programming language (as defined by ECMA Standard 55 Minimal BASIC (1977)) were no longer limited by speed or memory while maintaining its syntax, format, and functionality with complete backwards compatibility. A "prototyping language" based on the protoBASIC principle is minimalist yet functional. Prototyping languages may have features like simple syntax, rich external functions and libraries, and support for dynamic typing and flexible programming constructs, but BASIC truly embodies these characteristics. Moreover, many prototyping languages are designed to be highly extensible, enabling developers to easily create and integrate new libraries, modules, and components while preserving backward compatibility with the original syntax and dialect.

As computer technology continues to advance, it is evident that there is a prevailing tendency to indiscriminately incorporate superfluous features into development tools, toolchains, frameworks, or even resort to creating entirely new programming languages, all while neglecting the adaptation and modernization of established tools, practices, principles, and languages. However, it is crucial to recognize that novelty alone does not guarantee superiority in terms of efficiency, security, or simplicity. Even the most secure and cost-effective programming languages can be trumped by poor programming practice.  In stark contrast to bygone eras, present-day programmers and developers are bestowed with an abundance of invaluable resources such as memory, storage, processors, speed, and input/output devices. It is against this backdrop that our project stands, with the resolute goal of creating a revolutionary rapid-prototyping programming language that reinforces the foundations of "classic" programming languages, including the likes of BASIC, Logo, Pascal, COMAL, Algol, and Modula. Moreover, our philosophy extends beyond simple language design, as we endeavor to provide a comprehensive suite of tools that empowers users to craft programs seamlessly integrating features derived from diverse programming languages such as Ruby, Perl, Javascript, Java, Python, and beyond.

ProtoBASIC is an object-oriented and pragma-oriented structured programming language designed to simplify development. It combines multiple paradigms and aims for simplicity and efficiency. The syntax of protoBASIC is straightforward and easy to read, avoiding confusing or obscure language. It draws influence from functional languages like BASIC and object-oriented languages like Pascal. In protoBASIC, objects are represented by references or pointers, allowing for easy encapsulation of state and simplified reasoning about application behavior. Synchronization mechanisms like locks or mutexes are unnecessary due to the use of object references. ProtoBASIC has a unified syntax for referencing objects and calling methods with different argument lists, offering flexibility when working with objects with multiple methods or functions returning multiple values. This approach enhances code efficiency, security, and simplicity. It emphasizes that complexity is not indicative of strength or security. When it comes to prototyping languages, updating classic BASIC based on the protoprogramming principle can offer several benefits. It allows for a simpler and more intuitive syntax that is easy to learn and use, with minimal use of complex, unused, or obscure features as defined by each case use scenario. Additionally, it supports structured programming concepts such as loops, conditional statements, and subroutines, which allows for modular and organized code. The language should also support basic data types such as integers, floating-point numbers, strings, and arrays, along with variables and constants. Furthermore, low-level programming features such as direct memory access, pointer arithmetic, and bitwise operations should be provided to allow for efficient and optimized code. Interactive debugging is also essential to provide a simple and effective way to debug code, such as an interactive command-line debugger or a visual debugger with step-by-step execution. Breaking down the language into smaller, external elements allows for greater flexibility and adaptation to nearly any task or situation. This approach also enhances security by enabling the testing and refining of security features before a final product is released. By not introducing unneeded elements or functions into the code potential flaws, bugs, or security holes can be identified and addressed earlier in the development process, reducing the risk of security breaches in the final product. The emphasis on efficiency and minimalism may make it easier for developers to identify and address potential security vulnerabilities by quickly developing and testing prototypes. Updating classic BASIC as an example of a prototyping language based on the protoprogramming principle offers several advantages that can help developers create better, more secure, and more efficient software.

A programming language crafted with the KISS principle at its core is a testament to the prioritization of simplicity and minimalism over interactivity and expressiveness. By adopting this principle, the language strives to establish itself as effortlessly learnable and user-friendly, boasting a concise array of features and capabilities. This deliberate design approach renders the language accessible to novices and those with limited programming experience, ensuring a seamless onboarding process. While this KISS-based language undeniably excels in accessibility and user-friendliness, it may relinquish some of the raw power and versatility that a language built upon the protoprogramming principle possesses. Nonetheless, the advantages of a KISS-based language are manifold: it cultivates an environment that fosters quick comprehension and utilization, resonating with a diverse array of users. Furthermore, the language embodies efficiency and optimization, resulting in swifter and more lightweight program executions. Nevertheless, it is imperative to acknowledge that this simplicity-focused language may bear certain limitations, such as potential constraints on its potency and adaptability when compared to a language devised under the protoprogramming principle. Consequently, advanced programming concepts and techniques may not find robust support within this paradigm.

A programming language fashioned with the protoprogramming principle at its core embraces the primacy of interactivity, expressiveness, and flexibility, surpassing simplicity and minimalism. This deliberate approach invariably begets a language that exudes a remarkable degree of customizability and extensibility, boasting an expansive array of features and capabilities. Anticipated attributes of such a language might encompass dynamic typing, an influential standard external library, and robust support for advanced programming concepts like metaprogramming and functional programming. It is crucial to acknowledge that the flip side of this coin entails the potential for heightened complexity and a steeper learning curve, demanding additional time and effort for both development and maintenance. Nevertheless, the merits of a protoprogramming-based language are plentiful: its remarkable customizability and extensibility empower developers to tailor the language to their specific needs and requirements. Consequently, this could culminate in a language that operates with heightened efficiency and efficacy for specific use cases and tasks. Furthermore, the language would embody enhanced power and versatility, providing robust support for advanced programming concepts and techniques. However, it is worth noting that these strengths may be accompanied by the challenges of increased complexity, a potentially steeper learning curve, and the necessity for additional time and effort to ensure proper development and maintenance.

The merits and limitations of each approach are contingent upon the specific use case and requirements at hand. However, why should we not embrace a forward-thinking paradigm that amalgamates the strengths of both principles into a more resilient foundation? It is worth noting that C++ is not the sole language to draw inspiration from 'C'. Consider the fact that nearly every other programming language traces its roots back to the 'C' programming language. Remarkably, the top five programming languages, characterized by their minimal footprint and resource efficiency, include 'C', Assembly Language, Go, Rust, and Lua. Could we not replicate this success with other programming languages, such as BASIC? By leveraging the established foundations and principles of 'C' while incorporating the innovative aspects of protoprogramming, we have the potential to usher in a new era of robust and adaptable programming languages.

Developing a programming language, such as protoBASIC, based on the protoprogramming principle offers numerous compelling advantages by dissecting the diverse functions of various BASIC dialects into smaller elements. The language at its core should boast a simple and intuitive syntax that facilitates easy learning and usage, while minimizing the inclusion of complex or obscure features. Additionally, it should embrace structured programming concepts like loops, conditional statements, and subroutines, empowering developers to craft modular and well-organized code. Basic data types, including integers, floating-point numbers, strings, and arrays, alongside variables and constants, should be supported. Furthermore, incorporating low-level programming features like direct memory access, pointer arithmetic, and bitwise operations enables the creation of efficient and optimized code. To streamline the development process, the language should provide robust debugging tools such as an interactive command-line debugger or a visual debugger with step-by-step execution. By breaking down the language into smaller, external elements, it becomes adaptable to a wide array of tasks and scenarios. This approach allows for meticulous testing and refinement of security features prior to product release, preventing the introduction of unnecessary elements or functions that could compromise the integrity of the code. Swiftly developing and evaluating prototypes enables developers to proactively identify and address security concerns during the early stages, thereby mitigating the risks associated with potential breaches in the final product. With a steadfast focus on efficiency and minimalism, this approach facilitates the identification and resolution of potential security vulnerabilities, empowering developers to create more robust and secure software solutions.

This does not describe QBASIC or even Python and similar languages because even those programming languages can still benefit by being broken down into smaller elements. 

There exist significant distinctions between a programming language based on the KISS principle and one rooted in the protoprogramming principle. The KISS principle centers around simplicity, encompassing a minimal set of features that are easily comprehensible and user-friendly. Conversely, the protoprogramming principle embraces a potentially higher degree of complexity, offering a broader range of features that foster enhanced flexibility and unleash creative programming possibilities. By adhering to the protoprogramming principle, developers gain access to dynamic typing and the ability to manipulate code at runtime, thereby enabling greater programming adaptability. In contrast, the KISS principle may employ more rigid typing systems and provide limited flexibility in programming approaches. The protoprogramming principle places a strong emphasis on interactivity, introducing features such as a REPL (read-eval-print-loop) that facilitates immediate feedback and encourages experimentation. On the other hand, the KISS principle may lack such interactive functionalities. Additionally, the protoprogramming principle strives for code expressiveness, enabling concise and potent programming constructs, while the KISS principle typically adopts a simpler syntax with comparatively less expressive capabilities.

However, there are significant similarities between a programming language based on the KISS principle and the protoprogramming principle, which can be considered as an evolutionary step from the former. Both principles share the fundamental objective of simplifying programming and enhancing accessibility by minimizing complexity and prioritizing essential features. They both strive to develop languages that optimize resource usage, such as memory and processing power, for improved efficiency. Moreover, both principles advocate for a minimalist language design, focusing on a concise and efficient core feature set while deliberately avoiding unnecessary elements and reducing redundancy. Ease of use and comprehensibility with a shallow learning curve are common aspirations of both principles, ensuring that developers can quickly grasp and utilize the language. Additionally, both principles place a strong emphasis on interactivity, empowering developers to actively engage with their code and receive real-time feedback, thereby fostering a productive and dynamic programming experience.

The key distinctions between the KISS principle and the protoprogramming principle lie in their approaches to complexity, flexibility, interactivity, and expressiveness, while their similarities lie in their shared focus on simplicity, efficiency, and minimalism. Both principles are united by the goal of maintaining simplicity and clarity in programming. However, significant differences exist between the two approaches. KISS strives for code simplicity by avoiding unnecessary complexity and employing straightforward solutions, while protoprogramming aims to create a user-friendly and easily understandable language with a minimalistic design. KISS emphasizes reducing errors, whereas protoprogramming prioritizes minimizing the cognitive load on programmers. Minimalism is championed by KISS, while protoprogramming emphasizes expressiveness. In summary, both principles aim to streamline programming, but from distinct perspectives. KISS focuses on achieving code simplicity, efficiency, and maintainability, while protoprogramming endeavors to design a language that is easy to learn, use, and comprehend. Prototyping languages may incorporate various features to support these objectives, including streamlined syntax, comprehensive external functions and libraries, and support for dynamic typing and other flexible programming constructs. Furthermore, many prototyping languages offer high extensibility, enabling developers to effortlessly create and integrate new libraries, modules, and components as needed, enhancing the language's adaptability and versatility.

The over-implementation of the "Keep It Simple Stupid" (KISS) principle may encounter certain pitfalls. One such pitfall is the risk of oversimplification, where a solution becomes so simplistic that it fails to meet the requirements of the problem at hand. Complex problems often demand equally complex solutions, and overly simplifying them can lead to inadequate outcomes. Furthermore, the KISS principle may not be suitable for projects that require scalability. As a project expands, the initial simplicity that was effective in the beginning may become insufficient to address new demands. Introducing complexity then becomes necessary to accommodate these changes, rendering the KISS principle inadequate.  Moreover, strictly adhering to simplicity can hinder innovation. Innovative ideas often arise from thinking outside the box and exploring new and intricate concepts, which may not align with the principles of KISS. This limitation can restrict the potential for novel and imaginative solutions. Simplicity can also be bewildering, particularly for users unfamiliar with the product, resulting in a subpar user experience that fosters frustration and discourages adoption.  Additionally, over-reliance on assumptions is a risk associated with the KISS principle. Developers may assume that users possess an understanding of the product or the problem being addressed, leading to insufficient documentation or training. This can result in confusion and hinder product adoption. It is important to note that the absence of complexity does not inherently imply a lack of security or efficiency.

While protoprogramming offers numerous benefits, it is essential to consider potential pitfalls as well. Due to its emphasis on simplicity and minimalism, protoprogramming may not be suitable for complex tasks that require extensive features and functionality. Programmers may need to compromise certain capabilities to maintain code simplicity and comprehensibility. Furthermore, prototyping languages and frameworks typically intend for the prototypes to be replaced by more scalable and robust solutions in the future, which may not align with projects demanding highly scalable solutions from the outset.  Although protoprogramming can result in easily understandable code, it can also make code maintenance more challenging over time. A potential lack of structure and organization, which are crucial for large and intricate projects, can arise. Moreover, prototyping languages and frameworks may suffer from limited community support and resources, making it arduous to seek assistance for troubleshooting and problem-solving. Additionally, the absence of extensive documentation can impede the learning process for new programmers and hinder the effective utilization of the technology.  However, by breaking down tasks into smaller, manageable components, some of these pitfalls can be mitigated while potentially enhancing security and improving efficiency.

When comparing the KISS principle with the protoprogramming principle in language design, distinct differences emerge. The KISS principle focuses on simplicity, prioritizing straightforwardness and user-friendliness, while the protoprogramming principle emphasizes interactivity, enabling rapid idea experimentation and system interaction for developers. KISS promotes minimalism by offering only essential features for task completion, whereas protoprogramming emphasizes flexibility with a wide range of adaptable tools suitable for various contexts. In terms of efficiency, KISS prioritizes performance and execution speed, while protoprogramming emphasizes expressiveness through a comprehensive set of constructs for concise and elegant expression of complex ideas and solutions. While KISS aims for standardization and a stable environment, protoprogramming encourages innovation, fostering experimentation and the development of new ideas and techniques. In the realm of language design, the protoBASIC language principle provides a powerful approach that enhances interactivity, expressiveness, and flexibility in developing operating systems and languages. Striking a balance between the benefits of KISS and protoprogramming is crucial, while also considering other principles such as user experience, pragmatism, scalability, and innovation to create robust and effective programming languages and systems. By incorporating these considerations, developers can create languages that meet diverse requirements and drive technological advancements.  ProtoBASIC is self-adapting. Using this method, protoBASIC can be used to redefine or redesign (or reprogram) itself.

I think you get the idea.