My opinion from having written so much in all kinds of BASICs back then is that it is convenience more than unlocking doors. Learning, for example, the two memory addresses to POKE to on the C-64 to move the cursor to a fixed position is a tool one learned no different than learning the more convenient alternatives of "PRINTAT" and "LOCATE". But I do agree that drawing lines etc. directly in BASIC provided a lot of fun. BASIC, by its nature, was the real limitation.
> "POKE" is not really BASIC, it's a cheat.
I don't understand why you don't consider it BASIC, or why it's cheating. Practically every BASIC out there from that era allows for direct interaction with the computer's memory. It's fundamental functionality of the lowest level possible, and the diametrical opposite of cheating.
It's because POKE in C64 felt to me like an excuse not to implement the actual command, "we give up, here's how you interact directly with the hardware". It feels the wrong level of abstraction. I now understand why they went this route (a combination of a poor licensing deal and the need to keep the BASIC implementation small enough to fit in memory), but it still left a bad taste.
And I'm speaking as 10-year old me, who didn't yet understand programming languages: Commodore BASIC felt incomplete.
> "POKE" is not really BASIC, it's a cheat.
I don't understand why you don't consider it BASIC, or why it's cheating. Practically every BASIC out there from that era allows for direct interaction with the computer's memory. It's fundamental functionality of the lowest level possible, and the diametrical opposite of cheating.