🚀 go-pugleaf

>>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..
>>

Stony Brook compares quite favorably against these.  In fact, most of the code
is so compact, that even I, an code-optimizing freak :), had problems finding
things to optimize.

> I still like Turbo Pascal 6.0 better.  As I already optimize my code,
> I don't need any compiler to do so.  (So I don't get flamed): This does

I hand optimize my code, too, Mark.  Sometimes I use Stony Brook to turn
out assembly code so I don't have to write it.  Usually, it gets written
in straight assembly first, then thrown in to Pascal's inline assembly.
I generally don't like linking in .OBJ files.  Stony Brook handles them
wonderfully, but Turbo Pascal pukes on anything but procedure and 
function calls.

> (i.e. that arrays have to be constant).  As far as I can tell, this

The arrays don't have to be constant.  For instance:

type
  BArray = array[0..0] of Byte;

var
  B : ^BArray;
  NumElements : Integer;

begin
  Write('How many elements in the byte array: ');
  ReadLn(NumElements);
  GetMem(B,NumElements*SizeOf(Byte));
end;

This way, I can access B^[42] and B^[64000] quite easily...but I'll bet you
knew that and was referring to something else.

> is the only thing that separates C from Pascal.  On a final note,
> Pascal does have easier string handling and an ability to handle boolean
> functions.
> 
> This is one nice thing about TP:
> 
> function BoolTest(x,y:byte): boolean;
> begin
>  ...
> end;
> 
> begin
>  if BoolTest(10,40) then InsertAnotherSpiffyProcedureNameHereIfYouWant;
> end.

It does have easier string handling (hey, you C people, try doing this:
MyString := MyString + 'Hello' + MyString + ' Big String';  without using
C++ to generate a string operation class.), but C handles Boolean stuff
nicely, since the type casting isn't as strict.  For instance, the 
equivalent C procedure would have been:

char BoolTest(x,y)
unsigned char x,y;
{
  ...
}

main()
{
  if(BoolTest(10,40)) then InsertAnotherSpiffyProcedureNameHereIfYouWant;
}

One advantage of this is doing:

int IsThisTrue=1;

if(IsThisTrue) { ... }

In Pascal you'd have to typecast it:

const IsThisTrue : Integer = 1;

if Boolean(IsThisTrue) then begin ... end;


Don't get me wrong, Mark, I prefer Turbo Pascal over any of Borland's C
products: faster compile time, faster code, and smaller code.  But I wish
that Pascal were a bit less strict on its type casting.  I have a list of
what I'd want in the "perfect" language:

  C type casting.
  Pascal objects (C's multiple inheritance stinks!)
  The ability to perform ESP with the programmer.
  The ability to outguess the programmer on his/her next action.

OK, so it's far fetched.  I did like the game library idea:

  MakeGame(SPACE_GAME, WITH_LOTS_OF_WEAPONS, WITH_LOTS_OF_ALIENS ...

well, you get the drift.

Take care,
Josh

In article <l1hmxkp@lynx.unm.edu> iuzzolin@carina.unm.edu (Harold Iuzzolino) writes:
[Tons of stuff deleted]
>This is one nice thing about TP:
>
>function BoolTest(x,y:byte): boolean;
>begin
> ...
>end;
>
>begin
> if BoolTest(10,40) then InsertAnotherSpiffyProcedureNameHereIfYouWant;
>end.
> 
This is simple to do in C.
I always include

#define True -1
#define False 0
typedef char bool
typedef unsigned char byte

then you can just say

bool BoolTest(byte x,byte y) {
...
}

...
  if (BoolTest(10,40)) {
    foo();
    }

I think it's pretty funny when people argue about Pascal and C, when
I consider them about the same.  I think an argument about C/Pascal
against Lisp/Prolog would be more fun.  I think the one BIG argument
for C is portability.  I just saw a post for a Ray tracer that works
with Amigas, Macs, IBM's, and Unices, all with the same source code.
You just can't do that Pascal.  I don't think that this necessarily
means that C is better, it just happened that C became the "portable"
language.  Why hasn't the US switched to Metric yet???  Is it because
our system is better, no, it just happened.  It's the same way
as HAYES-compatible modems, EPSON-printers, etc. One language/thing
gets accepted by a number of people, and then someone says, hey
lets make a "standard".  The original Unix could have been written
in Pascal, why not, then maybe someone would have said, hey lets make
a "Standard" Pascal that will work on any machine, it just didn't
happen that way... 


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
           -Linux Rules-                |
  -"I've been Dos free for 30 days      |
    now."-Former Dos Addict             | Address: woody@cs.utexas.edu

iuzzolin@carina.unm.edu (Harold Iuzzolino) writes:

>[Lots deleted]
>>
>>>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..
>>
>[Mac pascal nuked]
>>
>>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!!

>the_variable:=(the_variable shl 3)

>this is portable (at least to the amiga).  I have done it, I have proof,
>I have programs that don't crash.  I have also seen Stony Brook's Pascal
>(I own in it fact).  It is pretty good (optimization blows me away), but
>I still like Turbo Pascal 6.0 better.  As I already optimize my code,
>I don't need any compiler to do so.  (So I don't get flamed): This does
>not mean that everyone can optimize their code.  Yes it is nice to
>have a copmiler to do so.  Yes C does nicely.  However, if you guys
>are going to go with optimization and libraries...how about Fortran (Puketran
>to us)?  That is optimized, portable, and has millions of libraries.
>(Ok, maybe not millions...but a lot).  Turbo Pascal is still the best 
>language (I consider it to be a different language to normal Pascal) I
>have ever used.  The only problem with it is the compiler limitations.
>(i.e. that arrays have to be constant).  As far as I can tell, this
>is the only thing that separates C from Pascal.  On a final note,
>Pascal does have easier string handling and an ability to handle boolean
>functions.

>This is one nice thing about TP:

>function BoolTest(x,y:byte): boolean;
>begin
> ...
>end;

>begin
> if BoolTest(10,40) then InsertAnotherSpiffyProcedureNameHereIfYouWant;
>end.
> 
well..I guess you beat C there.. in C you  would have to go:

int BoolTest(x, y)
	int x, y;
	{
	if(x==y) /* or whatever... */
		return 1; /* or use TRUE, with stdio included.. */
	else
		return 0; /* or use FALSE,        ''            */
	}

main()
	{
	if( Booltest(10,40) ) DoTheRealProgammerThing;
	}

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

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

In article <1992Jul27.005952.4167@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz>, stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Stuart Woolford) writes...
>well..I guess you beat C there.. in C you  would have to go:
> 
>int BoolTest(x, y)
>	int x, y;
>	{
>	if(x==y) /* or whatever... */
>		return 1; /* or use TRUE, with stdio included.. */
>	else
>		return 0; /* or use FALSE,        ''            */
>	}

Not really.  You could do this just as easily:

	int BoolTest ( int x, int y ) {

	   return ( x==y )
	}

The value is returned based on the condition.  0 if false, greater than zero
(or just any non zero value?) if true.

> 
>main()
>	{
>	if( Booltest(10,40) ) DoTheRealProgammerThing;
>	}
> 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz
> 
>			>>In VI Where Available<<
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ray J., PSRJD@ACAD2.ALASKA.EDU

psrjd@acad3.alaska.edu writes:

>In article <1992Jul27.005952.4167@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz>, stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Stuart Woolford) writes...
>>well..I guess you beat C there.. in C you  would have to go:
>> 
>>int BoolTest(x, y)
>>	int x, y;
>>	{
>>	if(x==y) /* or whatever... */
>>		return 1; /* or use TRUE, with stdio included.. */
>>	else
>>		return 0; /* or use FALSE,        ''            */
>>	}

>Not really.  You could do this just as easily:

>	int BoolTest ( int x, int y ) {

>	   return ( x==y )
>	}

What about
#define BoolTest(a,b) ((a)==(b))

>>main()
>>	{
>>	if( BoolTest(10,40) ) DoTheRealProgammerThing;
>>	}
>> 
-- 
nyet@cco.caltech.edu
nyet@aerospace.aero.org

psrjd@acad3.alaska.edu writes:

>In article <1992Jul27.005952.4167@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz>, stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Stuart Woolford) writes...
>>well..I guess you beat C there.. in C you  would have to go:
>> 
>>int BoolTest(x, y)
>>	int x, y;
>>	{
>>	if(x==y) /* or whatever... */
>>		return 1; /* or use TRUE, with stdio included.. */
>>	else
>>		return 0; /* or use FALSE,        ''            */
>>	}

>Not really.  You could do this just as easily:

>	int BoolTest ( int x, int y ) {

>	   return ( x==y )
>	}

>The value is returned based on the condition.  0 if false, greater than zero
>(or just any non zero value?) if true.

Very true...but I was trying to make it simple for the Pascal people ;-)
( and I HATE ANSI headers !!!!!! )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz

			>>>>UNIX - and PROUD of it<<<<
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is Stony Brook?

In article <36572@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>, gmt@reef.cis.ufl.edu (GMM) writes:
> What is Stony Brook?

Stony Brook is a software company that does a lot of compilers.  Pascal+
a TP6 globally optimizing compiler is available from them.

Stony Brook Software
187 East Wilbur Road, Suite 9
Thousand Oaks, California 91360