🚀 go-pugleaf

On 1997-02-14 setech@ix.netcom.com said:
   >Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic,comp.lang.pascal.borland,fr.comp.lang.
   >pascal
   >A comparison of BASIC and Pascal seems to me to be about the most
   >ironic comparisons of two languages.

   The toughest "popular" language to parse, "basic" -- versus -- the easiest
language to parse (by design), "pascal" ..

   Just doesn't seem fair does it? =)

   >for QuickBASIC, Visual Basic, and other varieties.  Pascal was
   >adapted to Turbo Pascal, Extended Pascal, several 32-bit
   >derivatives, and Delphi as well.

   Don't forget Worth's MODULA/? .. another easy language to parse .. heh =)


   Do you want to really mess with the Pascal and C "fanatics"? (not the users,
but those who push their language as the be all end all)

   Write a C or pascal compiler in QBasic or even GW-BASIC. Pascal is a very
easy language to write a compiler for (by design) .. however both can
(obviously) be written in basic and it sure would piss off the language bigots.

   IMHO, Quick Basic is the ideal language to write any text parser in ..


J. Koss (jkoss@snet.net)

--: there is as yet no downside to being fluent in assembler

Net-Tamer V 1.08 - Test Drive