🚀 go-pugleaf

Randall Leroy Speaks wrote:

> In article <5dvf62$egf2@venus.compulink.gr>,
> Michael Iordanakis <xamogela@compulink.gr> wrote:
> >
> >Pascal is far more advanced than basic. This means that lots of pascal
> >procedures, functions or statements are not easily converted to Basic
> >because machine code must be used.
> 
> a math professor had a wonderful term for a statement like this...
> a WAG.  how can you possibly plop in here among educated people and
> expect to justify such a presumtuous claim? if you had said C, or C++
> you would have been much more credible.  i wouldn't be surprised if you
> think basic is still line numbers.

This looks a bit like the potential starting point for an argument that
can turn nasty fast.

A comparison of BASIC and Pascal seems to me to be about the most ironic
comparisons of two languages.  On the one hand BASIC, a simple starter
language (Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code).  It runs in
my mind that it was originally intended to be an introductory teaching
language.  On the other hand, Pascal, created by Niklaus Wirth as an
instructional language to teach the concept of structured programming.

So, in a sense, neither party has a right to brag.  Both languages come
from rather humble beginnings, and weren't outfitted to handle the
demands that modern languages present.  They were both extended and
enhanced.  Frankly, I think you write about as much BASIC now as I write
Standard Pascal.  They're both relics.  BASIC made way for QuickBASIC,
Visual Basic, and other varieties.  Pascal was adapted to Turbo Pascal,
Extended Pascal, several 32-bit derivatives, and Delphi as well.

For the record, I've written in Pascal, BASIC, Turbo Pascal, and
QuickBASIC, and I *do* have some idea of the capabilities of each. 
Granted, once I used both BASIC and Turbo Pascal, I found TP much easier
and more intuitive to use, but that's more a matter of personal taste.

Regardless, in terms of the original issue, BASIC and Pascal each have
inherent structures that create a bit of a language barrier, and make
translation difficult at best.  IMHO, the best and most reliable way to
convert code from one language to another is with hands, eyes, and
brain.

Or going from BASIC to Pascal, it just might be a good idea to start
from scratch and approach the problem as it would be handled with
Pascal.

> by the way, WAG stands for Wild-Ass Guess
> 
> cheers,
> Randy
	
-- 
Scott Earnest        | We now return you to our regularly |
setech@ix.netcom.com | scheduled chaos and mayhem. . . .  |