I had a C16, and later a C128D (and therefore a C64). The C64 had the most limited BASIC of them all, with v2.0. So many advanced features were hidden behind PEEK/POKE. With BASIC 3.5 on the C16, they added the RENUMBER command, which made refactoring much easier, and it had a SOUND command, despite having a much simpler DSP implementation. The C128 had BASIC v7.0, which included a sprite editor, and much more advanced SOUND command.

If they upgraded the C64's BASIC to 7.0, that would already make a lot of things much more accessible.

> With fixed line numbers? Refactoring was near impossible. Spaghetti code was par for the course.

Yup, even for the old 8-bit computers FORTH would've been a lot more elegant than BASIC. But back in the day BASIC came with highly valued conveniences such as a soft-float implementation that meant support for the "desk calculator" use case was available out of the box, and users could just go on from there.

There are many flavours of BASIC; some with line numbers and GOTO/GOSUB, some without line numbers and real subroutines. FreeBASIC for example doesn't have line numbers. It's similar to Fortran or COBOL, both of whom also started out with line numbers and GOTO-oriented programming. But no one uses those languages like that any more.

No idea what this BASIC looks like though; the documentation seems chaotic and hard to access. Just saying that BASIC does not necessarily mean the BASIC that you or I used back in the day. I also agree that you can do a hell of a lot better than Python to introduce programming to kids.

I mean it's a better language for middle-school kids. They shouldn't be concerned with refactoring.

Important thing about BASIC is that each "command" does a rather limited amount of "stuff". In that way it is kinda similar to assembly language.