I think this is the standing myth, but it misses BASIC's historical origins. BASIC was named because the authors wanted a very basic language. But it's early popularity was not its simplicity, but its interactivity. I would suggest it was one of the very early IDE's (integrated development environments). If you were a beginner and were going to write a program in the '70's, you have your choice.
1) Learn how to launch BASIC. Start typing. 2) Or learn how to launch an editor, learn the system file structure and save your edited source with only allowed character names and extensions, learn how to launch a compiler, with half a dozen command line parameters, which implies learning the command line structure of the system as well, learn how to launch an assembler, again with command line parameters, extensions, and file modifications, learn how to run a linker, etc., and then see if your program did anything but crash. The differences were astounding. BASIC accomplished this by being interactive. You could enter your program, edit your program, run your program, all from the terminal. So BASIC became popular by being interactive.Lest we forget interactivity was what made the Personal Computer, well, personal. Most contact with computers in the 1970's was through a punch card deck. Someone else took care of the JCL cards that proceeded and followed your job, and a print out was all you got back. Unless you were a system guy, you never saw the part where all that was done. The JCL (or the paper tape, or even the front switch panel) was the interactive part.
Now those days are gone. The new "Basic"s aren't interactive any more. They are roughly like any conventional language. Hence only the leagacy of "simple" carries Basic forward, and the simpicity stands in the way of useability, without the advantage of interactivity. Yet it tends to be a very low performance language, speed-wise.
Yes, sorry. Generally promoting Forth falls to me, here (self appointed). Been down sick for over a week (or should I say very weak).
Forth retains its interactivity (most versions), runs natively on the final system, has good speed (particularly for a language retaining interactivity), and has unparallel code compaction. Forth is generally available at very reasonable prices, as well as in freewear "unsupported" versions.
In robotics, the wonderful thing about Forth is, again, its interactivity. You don't have to wonder what value some variable holds, you can query it and see. You don't have to wonder if some output is high or low, you can query it and see. You don't have to wonder what some input from a sensor is, you can query it and see. You don't have to wonder if changing some variable slightly would do, you can just set the value and try it. You don't have to wonder if some servo is working or not, you can just try it, set it where you want, and see if it follows. And so on. They way you do these sorts of changes with conventional debugging are usually convoluted and complex, and done with very expensive ICE equipment, while Forth programmers feel totally enabled with a tiny bag of tools readily at hand.
Interactivity. Nearly a lost concept in the world of modern programming.
You might want to atleast have a look at Forth. MPE is one of the remaining leading vendors, and is resident in the UK.
-- Randy M. Dumse