🚀 go-pugleaf

johnf@apollo.hp.com (John Francis) writes:

>bruce@inmos.co.uk (Bruce Stenning) writes:
>>Can you imagine writing something like UNIX in Pascal?  It would be an
>>absolute nightmare.

>I don't have to imagine it - I've seen it.  In fact I wrote some of it.
>Domain/OS (the operating system for Apollo workstations) is written in Pascal.
>It's no more or less of a nightmare than real UN*X(tm).

>Now can we please all stop the "my language is better than your language"
>wars?  Without knowing all the constraints, it is impossible to make any
>meaningful comparisons.  for example:

>If portability is the major concern, then obvously you should choose C.
>If the code is only going to run on your computer, use whatever you like.
>TP has a (much) faster compile-load-run cyle, so using that instead of
>a C compiler can be a big win, especially on a slower machine like a 286.

not really.. try using the windows version to TP and QC/Windows, the
first is a dog on anything less than a fast 386/lots of mem..whereas QC
is quite useable..

also..by the time you include the linking, I find QC 2.0 ( for dos ) has
a MUCH faster develop time than TP ( sould be linked to RamDisk.. ).
also: I find the best part of QC 2.0 is the GREAT online help, which
has a much larger effect on my develop time than compiler speed, let along
having access to CodeView ( a GREAT debugger.. MUCH more powerfull/solid
than TD in my experience.. )

>As for the two languages:  any half-way competent programmer can work
>equally well in either language.  Obviously each language has its own
>set of features you will miss when programming in the other: in my case
>I like Pascal variant records, and C conditional expressions.

no.. TP people I know seem to spend most of their time writing core routines
which QC has as standard.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz

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