🚀 go-pugleaf

> ...  Unfortunately, 'C' can be adapted only with great difficulties
> to other architectures, like the Cyber 173, the DEC-20, &c. (not to be
> misunderstood, 'C' compilers for these machines exists, it is just that
> practically no program that Joe Random Hacker produces on a VAX will
> run on them unaltered).

Actually, practically no program that Joe Random Hacker produces on a
VAX will run on a PDP11 unaltered...
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

--
Perhaps the nicest (in the sense of clean) thing about PASCAL
is the way it bifurcates the universe of objects into pointers
and pointees.  It is thus easier to debug monster programs
with monster data structures than is the case with C.  Actually,
all PASCAL needs to be a superior systems language to C is a
casting operator, assuming the compiler knows how to optimize
programming constructs like sequential array references.
I can do without the demented precedence of logical operators,
though.
-- 
                    *** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI   ***** *****
                 ****** ******  08 Jan 85 [19 Nivose An CXCIII]
ken perlow       *****   *****
(312)979-7188     ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken   *** ***

From Ken Perlow:
>--
>Actually, all PASCAL needs to be a superior systems language to C is a
>casting operator, assuming the compiler knows how to optimize
>programming constructs like sequential array references.

My experience implementing a filesystem in PASCAL was surprisingly
positive given the bias I held toward C at the time. The only deviation
from Jensen-Wirth's standard required to transform PASCAL from a toy
into a credible language is separately compilable modules.

Casting operators can then be written in PASCAL as functions which blindly
return whatever is passed to them (the assumption here is that type-checking
is ineffective across compilations). Such functions also serve the purpose
of C's `&' operator.

One still must code assembly routines in order to escape PASCAL's detestable
(that word is too mild!) I/O `philosophy'; again, separately compilable
modules provide this avenue.

The features of PASCAL I miss most when programming in `C' are:

1) The debugging power of PASCAL's subrange types.
2) Notational consistency, especially with structures, arrays and pointers.

It's unfortunate that C is irrevocably brain-damaged by the lack of
coherence and clarity as regards item (2). 

-michael ellis

> > ...  Unfortunately, 'C' can be adapted only with great difficulties
> > to other architectures, like the Cyber 173, the DEC-20, &c. (not to be
> > misunderstood, 'C' compilers for these machines exists, it is just that
> > practically no program that Joe Random Hacker produces on a VAX will
> > run on them unaltered).
> 
> Actually, practically no program that Joe Random Hacker produces on a
> VAX will run on a PDP11 unaltered...
> -- 
> 				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> 				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

Nobody ever claimed C guarantees that you will your code to portable, but
only that it allows you to write portable code.  The thing that makes C
so appealing for system programming is that it allows you to break the
rules.  Systems Programmers do not necessarily want to do things in a
portable or even structured manner.  They should be of a level of skill
that they know enough to be careful when using the questionable features
of the language.

-Ron

[]
>Perhaps the nicest (in the sense of clean) thing about PASCAL
>is the way it bifurcates the universe of objects into pointers
>and pointees.

I've always thought that was one of its most *broken* features.
This bifurcation is ridiculous in the light of such C objects
as pointers to pointers.

> It is thus easier to debug monster programs
>with monster data structures than is the case with C.

Exactly contrary to my experience with ~1000 line programs.
(Not really monsters, but large enough for comparison
purposes...)

> Actually,
>all PASCAL needs to be a superior systems language to C is a
>casting operator,

No pointer arithmetic?  Or ability to take the address of a static
object?  ACK!  The ability to have static headers for linked-lists
in dynamic storage is one of the things I miss most in Pascal. 

> assuming the compiler knows how to optimize
>programming constructs like sequential array references.

I prefer a minimum of magic (like global optimizations; these
are an invitation to the compiler to mysteriously break programs).

>I can do without the demented precedence of logical operators,
>though.

Plus the fact that short-circuit evaluation is not required...

>ken perlow

--
The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to
those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer.

Ken Montgomery  "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm  [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA  [for Arpanauts only]

> 2) Notational consistency, especially with structures, arrays and pointers.
> 
> It's unfortunate that C is irrevocably brain-damaged by the lack of
> coherence and clarity as regards item (2). 

How about explaining what you mean.  If you're referring to the
equivalence of
	*(p + i)
and
	p[i]
then I have to disagree.  Otherwise, what notational inconsistency?
Structs (unions), arrays, and pointers are not the same things so
what consistency are you asking for??

I admit the article tended to be heavy handed for Pascal, but the
replies needn't throw up all over it.  I mean we're professionals here.

Since I am equally at home with C and Pascal (and know when to use
either) I find it annoying to have people say C or Pascal is THE BEST.
However since this myth is taught in many CS classes, this attitude 
unfortunately will be around for awhile.

I'd better leave now since I have to spit my foot out.