🚀 go-pugleaf

bonney@esds.mdc.com (Greg Bonney) writes:

>In article <76207@ut-emx.uucp> andrean@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andre Arianto Nurwono) writes:
>>|>out program an expert in C or Turbo Pascal. (Btw, I consider TP 6.0 as good
>>|>or better than C).
>>|>
>>
>>Hey, me too !! I consider TP to be able to do everything that you can do
>>with C ... pointer arithmetic, dynamic memory, object-oriented extension,
>>even direct control of program flow & code generation.
>>The only thing that TP lacks from C is the ability to create .OBJ
>>function libraries (as opposed to .TPUs) for MS compiler compatibilities.
>>
>>I think the popularity of TP could just create a need for the redefinition
>>of the PASCAL language ?? What if there is a new 'standard' pascal that
>>supports OOP, pointer arithmetic, etc, etc ?? I think all those thousands
>>of people out there who are using TP with an IBM would gladly accept
>>a new standard of PASCAL ?
>>
>>Besides, it would help teach some CS courses like Computer Organization / 
>>Architecture courses from an already widely used Pascal as an introductory 
>>language, at least :) :)
>>Somebody said that pointer arithmetic is one of the excuses of why
>>such a language as C exists :) :)
>>Another body said "Pascal is dead ! So I will teach you C throughout
>>the course"
>>
>>Well ? Would upgrading of the greatly readable, standard Pascal 
>>be worth the effort, or is everyone already comfortable with the 
>>cryptic {}!|\n C has to offer ?
>>
>>Any comments ?
>>Just a crazily passing thought, he he he :) :)
>>
>>                                                                       
>>Andre Nurwono               | "Ho, haha, guard, turn, dodge, parry, spin, ha,
>>andrean@cc.utexas.edu       |  thrust... (BOINNNG!)"  - Daffy Duck
>>

>I still like Pascal.  Everybody says, "it was originally intended only to teach
>people how to program".  And I say, "so what?"  C apparently wasn't "good
>enough" in it's original incarnation either.  Otherwise, why did they have to
>come up with ANSII C and C++?  And C does sacrifice readability in favor of
>flexibility.  The C "for" statement is especially weird; it's completely
>different from "for" statements I've seen in any other language.

pity about the pascal code generation ( pascal is EASIER to optimize than
C, but no one (at least main-line compilers) seems to do it!!).compare
output of your favorite pascal compiler with the same ( functionally ) code
from MSC 6.0 (7.0??) or even watcom 9.0 ( with '486 code optimization ) and
you will see what I mean..


also.. I just love the ability to use the_variable<<=3; instead of ( I think )
the_variable:=shl(the_variable,3);, which would not even be portable!!

and ( under think pascal on the mac ) having to go:
	var
		ptr:tmpptr;
	begin
	...
	tmpptr:=ptr(longint(base_ptr)+offset);
	tmpptr^:=value;
	...
	end;

instead of

	base_ptr[offset]=value;

	or

	*base_ptr+offset=value;

for screen addressing ( offscreen, naturally... ) horrified me.

just some thoughts...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz

			>>>>In VI Where Available<<<<
------------------------------------------------------------------------------