well that's true but...

[Sidharta]

Well procedures and functions are not part of the basic either.
neither structures and unions.
Pointers are not parts of Basic but they are usefull.
I think Basic must be confortable to programmers and most important is efficiency in the use of code and with repeat you avoid using a local byte variable, probably even you can get a more compact code.
The purism in an ANSI Basic would be important in order to make MICROBASIC portable to other basics. It's not the case because there are a lot of improvements especific to the PIC structure that don't allow a direct portability

[zristic]

The problem with Basic is that it does not have a standard. We encountered so many definitions of Basic during the making of the compiler, that we did no know which one to choose. So we had to make a decision anyway, so we used the most common ones used in ASP and in VB with some extensions for PIC architecture.

I had a teacher of English who was a puritan. None understood her, even English native speakers. I do not think it is wise not to adopt the language to contemporary thinking. Simply, it is not productive- we have no time for decoding symbolism behind obscure structures.

[xor]

I do not think it is wise not to adopt the language to contemporary thinking. Simply, it is not productive- we have no time for decoding symbolism behind obscure structures.

Wow, that's deep....and I thought you guys only did programming.