I started off programming in Basic on the ZX81, then BASICA, GW-BASIC, and QBasic. I moved on to C (Ah, Turbo C 3.1, I hardly knew ye...)
When I got started in microcontrollers I regressed with the BASIC Stamp from Parallax. However, BASIC is/was awesome because it was so easy to understand and so hard to make a mistake. I moved on to assembly and C eventually because I needed the additional power (speed, capacity, resources, etc.), but I know that if the bar was much higher many people would never get into programming microcontrollers.
I keep getting an itch to make my own on-chip BASIC interpretor, but I wonder if there's need for BASIC now that Lua and Python are easily embeddable, and just as approachable as BASIC.
Plenty of other languages are considered dead, but BASIC just keeps hanging on.
As an architecture, the main claim to fame of BASIC is that you could make BASIC interpreters very small - just a few KB. In the days of a DG Nova this was a win as you could use systems like Business BASIC to build a multiuser application on a machine with 64K of RAM (or even less).
BASIC (VB in particular) is a legacy system and has a large existing code-base. Arguably VB is really a language (some would say a thin wrapper over COM) that has a BASIC-like syntax. These days, I see little reason to keep the language around apart from people's familiarity with it and to maintain the existing code base. I certainly would not advocate new development in it (note that VB.Net is not really BASIC but just has a VB-like syntax. The type system is not broken in the way that VB's was.)
What is missing from the computing world is a relevant language that is easy to learn and tinker with and has mind-share in mainstream application development. I grew up in the days of 8-bit machines, and the entry barrier to programming on those systems was very low. The architecture of the machines was very simple, and you could learn to program and write more-or-less relevant applications on these machines very easily.
Modern architectures are much more complex and have a bigger hump to learn. You can see people pontificating on how kids can't learn to program as easily as they could back in the days of BASIC and 8-bit computers and I think that argument has some merit. There is something of a hole left that makes programming just that bit harder to get into. Toy languages are not much use here - for programming to be attractive it has to be possible to aspire to build something relevant with the language you are learning.
This leads to the problem of a language that is easy for kids to learn but still allows them to write relevant programmes (or even games) that they might actually want. It also has to be widely perceived as relevant.
The closest thing I can think of to this is Python. It's not the only example of a language of that type, but it is the one with the most mind-share - and (IMO) a perception of relevance is necessary to play in this niche. It's also one of the easiest languages to learn that I've experienced (of the 30 or so that I've used over the years).