Board index » delphi » Pascal -- a "dead" language

Pascal -- a "dead" language

Pascal is only a dead language to those who have a dead brain.
                                                Andrey

Quote
Douglas beattie Jr. wrote:

> There is person I know who is currently taking Pascal programming
> as a prerequisite to their major.  The Pascal language,
> "like latin," this person said, "is a dead language."  This
> person also says "everything now is written in C."

> The professor, Beau Loughlin <lough...@skagit.ctc.edu> might have
> given the class that impression...

> If Pascal is really a dead language, what is this newsgroup for?

> --
> Douglas beattie Jr.

 

Re:Pascal -- a "dead" language


There is person I know who is currently taking Pascal programming
as a prerequisite to their major.  The Pascal language,
"like latin," this person said, "is a dead language."  This
person also says "everything now is written in C."

The professor, Beau Loughlin <lough...@skagit.ctc.edu> might have
given the class that impression...

If Pascal is really a dead language, what is this newsgroup for?

--
Douglas beattie Jr.

Re:Pascal -- a "dead" language


Quote
Douglas beattie Jr. wrote:

> There is person I know who is currently taking Pascal programming
> as a prerequisite to their major.  The Pascal language,
> "like latin," this person said, "is a dead language."  This
> person also says "everything now is written in C."

> The professor, Beau Loughlin <lough...@skagit.ctc.edu> might have
> given the class that impression...

> If Pascal is really a dead language, what is this newsgroup for?

> --
> Douglas beattie Jr.

A misconception among those who don't know what they're talking about.
If Pascal was dead:
1) This newsgroup wouldn't exist
2) Borland wouldn't be making Delphi (and making a fortune while they're
   at it)
3) Hasn't that person heard?  Latin is making a comeback!  So did
Pascal!
   (in Delphi)

Not everything is written in C.  C is not perfect.  Have you looked at
scientific modelling software source for supercomputers?  They're in
Fortran.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Brutsche

"Be of stout heart, Number One.  We've handled the Borg.  We can
certainly handle Admiral Jellico." - Jean-Luc Picard

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re:Pascal -- a "dead" language


Quote

> If Pascal is really a dead language, what is this newsgroup for?

Pascal is far from dead. Take a look what is being accomplished in DELPHI.
What is DELPHI, well one could simply call it PASCAL FOR WINDOWS. Learning
Pascal in it's lowest ANSI form is essential to be able to graduate to the
object orientation and visual components of DELPHI. Further more you will
find Pascal code a lot more easier on the eye than the harsh cryptic look
of C++.

One other interesting development is the BORLAND C++ Builder which allows
programmers to code either in C++ or Delphi in the same application. It
cares not whether the source code is C++ or Delphi and can mix and match.
This should tell you something about the two languages. They are both using
the SAME compiler, thus their constructs and layouts are very similar. The
actual syntax varies somewhat, but as I said earlier Pascal is more English
Reading than C++.

Hope this helps
Mike Heydon

Re:Pascal -- a "dead" language


Douglas beattie Jr. <beatt...@whidbey.net> wrote in article
<667ld4$ra...@news.whidbey.com>...

Quote
> There is person I know who is currently taking Pascal programming
> as a prerequisite to their major.  The Pascal language,
> "like latin," this person said, "is a dead language."  This
> person also says "everything now is written in C."

> The professor, Beau Loughlin <lough...@skagit.ctc.edu> might have
> given the class that impression...

> If Pascal is really a dead language, what is this newsgroup for?

> --
> Douglas beattie Jr.

If pascal is dead, some companies wouldn't make a fortune with their
software anymore. There exist still a lot of companies making their
professional software
using pascal, and they earn a lot of money with that too!

Besides, some problems could best be solved using C, others using Pascal.
The
question is not: which language is used mostly, it's more: what compiler
should
be used for building as fast as possible a solution for a given problem.
Current
hardware configurations don't need the most efficient software anymore,
otherwise
everybody should be programming in assembler: the most specific, and
therefore
most efficient code for a given problem.

If using pascal makes you solve your problem easier and faster, why using
C?

Greets,

Ferdinand.

Re:Pascal -- a "dead" language


Quote
>There is person I know who is currently taking Pascal programming
>as a prerequisite to their major.  The Pascal language,
>"like latin," this person said, "is a dead language."  This
>person also says "everything now is written in C."

>The professor, Beau Loughlin <lough...@skagit.ctc.edu> might have
>given the class that impression...

>If Pascal is really a dead language, what is this newsgroup for?

Pascal is not really dead. The bad thing is that Borland hasn't
improved the Dos-version since 1992 and because of that there
are a lot of disadvantages in it (like only 16Bit DPMI, 286 asm
without tricks and at maximum 8087 and 286 Instructions)
Pascal would be more popular if it was better improved.

Now we have Delphi, TMT-Pas, FPK-Pas an a lot of other compilers.
But unfortunately this is now a little bit too late because
C has established itself as standard-language. Maybe if there
were more and better compilers, Pas would be standard now...

Bye,
Stefan
--
please remove the P in my email-adress to answer me
take a look @ my homepage: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bay/9553
directly to the german part: http://www.sourcenet.home.pages.de/
ICQ-Key: 3875421

Re:Pascal -- a "dead" language


   >Xref: news.gte.net comp.lang.pascal.borland:27159
   >There is person I know who is currently taking Pascal programming
   >as a prerequisite to their major.  The Pascal language,
   >"like latin," this person said, "is a dead language."  This
   >person also says "everything now is written in C."

If Pascal is a "dead language" and everything now is written in C,
then why does C include the ability to permit Pascal code to be used
inside a C program? This is the only reason I even use C at all. I
write most all my code in Pascal and then link it into a C program so
it will use some custom C units for Windows that I use. 95% of my C
programs are actually Pascal code written in TurboPascal 7.0 or
Borland Pascal 7.0, depending on whether it is a real mode app or a
DPMI app.

jaywa...@gte.net

"More coffee, Tigger?" "No, Dis Tigger's triggered!" Whoo, Whoo!

Net-Tamer V 1.10.1  - Test Drive

Re:Pascal -- a "dead" language


In article <19971205233200.SAA02...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,

Quote
TigerPawz8 <tigerpa...@aol.com> wrote:
>>There is person I know who is currently taking Pascal programming
>>as a prerequisite to their major.  The Pascal language,
>>"like latin," this person said, "is a dead language."  This
>>person also says "everything now is written in C."

>Pascal may be a 'dead' language, but it is a very good learning language for
>more advanced languages, such as C and C++.  

C more advanced one? If is an low level language made to look as a high
level language. The results can be seen as random crashes, general
protection faults etc. by every end-user of C-programs.

Osmo

Re:Pascal -- a "dead" language


Quote
jaywa...@gte.net wrote:
>    >Xref: news.gte.net comp.lang.pascal.borland:27159
>    >There is person I know who is currently taking Pascal programming
>    >as a prerequisite to their major.  The Pascal language,
>    >"like latin," this person said, "is a dead language."  This
>    >person also says "everything now is written in C."

> If Pascal is a "dead language" and everything now is written in C,
> then why does C include the ability to permit Pascal code to be used
> inside a C program? This is the only reason I even use C at all. I
> write most all my code in Pascal and then link it into a C program so
> it will use some custom C units for Windows that I use. 95% of my C
> programs are actually Pascal code written in TurboPascal 7.0 or
> Borland Pascal 7.0, depending on whether it is a real mode app or a
> DPMI app.

Explain?  AFAIK, TP doesn't produce packaged code compatible with any C
compiler, unless either you're using a GNU compiler or Borland provided
TPU/TPP support in their C/C++ compilers.  There *does* exist a "pascal"
keyword in C/C++ which instructs the compiler to generate code using the
Pascal calling convention rather than the C calling convention.

Quote

> jaywa...@gte.net

> "More coffee, Tigger?" "No, Dis Tigger's triggered!" Whoo, Whoo!

> Net-Tamer V 1.10.1  - Test Drive

--
Scott Earnest        | We now return you to our regularly |
set...@ix.netcom.com | scheduled chaos and mayhem. . . .  |

Re:Pascal -- a "dead" language


On 1997-12-06 set...@ix.netcom.com said:
   >Explain?  AFAIK, TP doesn't produce packaged code compatible with any
   >C compiler, unless either you're using a GNU compiler or Borland
   >provided TPU/TPP support in their C/C++ compilers. There *does* exist
   >a "pascal" keyword in C/C++ which instructs the compiler to generate
   >code using the Pascal calling convention rather than the C calling
   >convention.

No, TP doesn't, nor do the .TPU/.TPP units work with C. BUT, you CAN take
your pascal code and put it practically verbatum into a C program and have
C compile it as if it were C source. The only thing you have to remember
is to write your pascal procedures as functions, since C doesn't
understand the differences between procedures and functions. Check your
manual for including Pascal source in a C program, it's fully explained
in how to do it. If it weren't for this feature and the fact that WIN95
is in C, I'd have no use for C at all.

BTW, I use BP7.0, TP7.0, MASM 6.0 and MC++7.0.
jaywa...@gte.net

"Energize," said Kirk, and the pink bunny appeared

Re:Pascal -- a "dead" language


Quote
Phil Brutsche wrote:

"Not everything is written in C.  C is not perfect.  Have you
looked at scientific modelling software source for
supercomputers? They're in Fortran."

You raise an important point.  Although C and C++ are quite
popular, the idea that 'everything is written in C/C++' is
probably less true now than 'everything is written in Fortranor
COBOL' would have been 30 years ago.  

It is my perception that their is a growing diversity in
languages which are in actual use.  By that I mean that
general-purpose procedural languages don't dominate the landscape
as they once did.  For example, why would I use C or C++ (or
Pascal) for a math problem if I could use something like Matlab,
Maple or Mathmatica?

Will

--
Will Dwinnell
Commercial Intelligence

Re:Pascal -- a "dead" language


C is OK. It is the C programmers that are responsible for the GPFs. Since the
compiler doesn't place great constraints on the programmer, many programmers
will not take the time to Carefully write code.
As far as efficiency is concerned, Let's all write machine code! And let's do
it binary!!! That doesn't sound like much fun.
Pascal is very good, Java is good, Smalltalk is good, Ada is good.
A good programmer can make C shine and a poor programmer can make Pascal
pathetic. It is not the language, it is the artist.

Re:Pascal -- a "dead" language


First of all not "everything is not written in C".  I personally have worked
in the programming field for the last 9 years on at least 12 or so projects
for different companies.  Only 2 of the projects were exclusively C.  I
learned Pascal and Ada in college and used both more then C by a large
margin.  In fact the Pascal and Ada training has actually instilled good
programming discipline in me.  C on the other hand would have been the
proverbial apple for me.  The temptation to disregard good sound programming
discipline would have been too great.  This is, from some programs I have
seen, a too great of a temptation for other C programmers.   Before the C
people spam me I would like to say the best C programmers I have ever worked
with know more than one language and language paradigm and fully recognize
the limitations of C.  FYI - They also never bash another language.

Quote
Douglas beattie Jr. wrote in message <667ld4$ra...@news.whidbey.com>...
>There is person I know who is currently taking Pascal programming
>as a prerequisite to their major.  The Pascal language,
>"like latin," this person said, "is a dead language."  This
>person also says "everything now is written in C."

>The professor, Beau Loughlin <lough...@skagit.ctc.edu> might have
>given the class that impression...

>If Pascal is really a dead language, what is this newsgroup for?

>--
>Douglas beattie Jr.

Re:Pascal -- a "dead" language


Well put!!  You are the first one so far that has really placed the
responsiblity of sound programming on the programmer and not on the
Language.  Too often I have to defend my objection of C code to programmer
that think I am "bashing" there language.  They don't want to think that
they are horrible programmers.  I have a theory that C is well liked by some
programmers, that should be shot, since they can cover up there mistakes.
The best C programmers I know are multi-lingual(programming languages)
Mult-paradigm capable and never look down on other languages.

Quote
Wwduke wrote in message <19971211011900.UAA02...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>C is OK. It is the C programmers that are responsible for the GPFs. Since
the
>compiler doesn't place great constraints on the programmer, many
programmers
>will not take the time to Carefully write code.
>As far as efficiency is concerned, Let's all write machine code! And let's
do
>it binary!!! That doesn't sound like much fun.
>Pascal is very good, Java is good, Smalltalk is good, Ada is good.
>A good programmer can make C shine and a poor programmer can make Pascal
>pathetic. It is not the language, it is the artist.

Re:Pascal -- a "dead" language


On 11 Dec 1997 01:19:48 GMT, wwd...@aol.com (Wwduke) wrote:

Amen that.  A language is only as good as its programer

Quote
>C is OK. It is the C programmers that are responsible for the GPFs. Since the
>compiler doesn't place great constraints on the programmer, many programmers
>will not take the time to Carefully write code.
>As far as efficiency is concerned, Let's all write machine code! And let's do
>it binary!!! That doesn't sound like much fun.
>Pascal is very good, Java is good, Smalltalk is good, Ada is good.
>A good programmer can make C shine and a poor programmer can make Pascal
>pathetic. It is not the language, it is the artist.

-----TekNomad
TekNo...@Texas.net
WHo Needs {*word*110}??? We've got emotional instability and sleep deprivation!!!!

Other Threads