Board index » delphi » Pascal is weak!!!

Pascal is weak!!!

Hello fellow newsgroup readers!

I am just a beginner with Pascal. My great amazement is that there is
no function which would allow us to raise a number to a certain power.
This is so retarded! This feature is very very important. Anyway, I
think it is stupid going through ln(x) to simply raise a number to
some power. No wander Pacal programs are so slow.

What do you people think? Does Pascal "suck"? Do you think anyone is
currently programming in it? Would anyone start a new project in
Pascal (NO!)?

Thank you all for your time.

Best Regards,
Mike Roznblyum

P.S. Please reply via email as well.

 

Re:Pascal is weak!!!


Quote
> I am just a beginner with Pascal. My great amazement is that there is
> no function which would allow us to raise a number to a certain power.
> This is so retarded! This feature is very very important. Anyway, I
> think it is stupid going through ln(x) to simply raise a number to
> some power. No wander Pacal programs are so slow.

> What do you people think? Does Pascal "suck"? Do you think anyone is
> currently programming in it? Would anyone start a new project in
> Pascal (NO!)?

   I'm not sure your message is worth ANY time/effort to reply, since you
are taking a most immature and uninformed view of Pascal - and the world
in general.  FYI, the power function _isn't_ the sole reason for a
computer's language existence; there are millions of useful computer
applications which haven't used it!  There are many valid reasons for
decrying the weaknesses/deficiencies in various languages, but you might
consider that most computer languages have existed for years _without_
all having the same features and/or interfaces - that's what makes a
"horse race", so to speak.  To deny (Turbo) Pascal's overall power, ease
of use (the IDE, Units, etc.), popularity, support among users and
vendors, speed of compilation and execution, language simplicity,
plethora of useful interfaces, varied i/o, stability, documentation
(vendor and after-market), and such is truly ignoring reality.
   There are millions of TP/BP users who feel your comments are based on
ignorance and inexperience - I do, for one!  Many of us have been writing
good, useful (and often important) TP/BP applications for years, and it's
our favorite environment.  Attempting to spew inane, ininformed garbage
such as you have, in this particular newsgroup, is ill-advised and only
inflammatory - at best.
   Now that you've succeeded in garnering a response, undeserved though
it was, please crawl back under that rock you came from and leave us
alone, to pursue worthwhile and productive things.

Re:Pascal is weak!!!


Quote
ro...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>This feature is very very important. Anyway, I
>think it is stupid going through ln(x) to simply raise a number to
>some power. No wander Pacal programs are so slow.
>What do you people think? Does Pascal "suck"? Do you think anyone is
>currently programming in it? Would anyone start a new project in
>Pascal (NO!)?

Maybe it keeps lamers such as you who can't think worth a damn away
from a fine language.  Did you ever stop to think that maybe SOMEONE
ELSE coded the exact same code for that "feature" into whatever poor
language you like (maybe that P.O.C. BASIC, because that's the only
one I know of that provides it).  And last time I checked, BASIC was
about 12 times SLOWER than Pascal.

GO BACK TO COMP.LANG.BASIC with the rest of your lamer friends....
And keep your ignorant posts away from here...

Re:Pascal is weak!!!


In several newsgroups <ro...@ix.netcom.com> repeated:
:What do you people think? Does Pascal "suck"? Do you think anyone is

Deja vu! Nothing will be gained by being "sucked" into answering
this part and inducing a new, boring advocacy cycle. Let's leave
this part be!!!

:I am just a beginner with Pascal. My great amazement is that there is
:no function which would allow us to raise a number to a certain power.

This item is for Turbo Pascal but should go even for standard Pascal.

-From: ftp://garbo.uwasa.fi/pc/link/tsfaqp.zip Frequently Asked TP Questions
-Subject: A generic power function code for TP

13. *****
 Q: I need a power function but there is none in Turbo Pascal.

 A: Pascals do not have an inbuilt power function. You have to write
one yourself. The common, but non-general method is defining
   function POWERFN (number, exponent : real) : real;
     begin
       powerfn := Exp(exponent*Ln(number));
     end;
To make it general use:
   (* Generalized power function by Prof. Timo Salmi *)
   function GENPOWFN (number, exponent : real) : real;
   begin
     if (exponent = 0.0) then
       genpowfn := 1.0
     else if number = 0.0 then
       genpowfn := 0.0
     else if abs(exponent*Ln(abs(number))) > 87.498 then
       begin writeln ('Overflow in GENPOWFN expression'); halt; end
     else if number > 0.0 then
       genpowfn := Exp(exponent*Ln(number))
     else if (number < 0.0) and (Frac(exponent) = 0.0) then
       if Odd(Round(exponent)) then
         genpowfn := -GENPOWFN (-number, exponent)
       else
         genpowfn :=  GENPOWFN (-number, exponent)
     else
       begin writeln ('Invalid GENPOWFN expression'); halt; end;
   end;  (* genpowfn *)
On the lighter side of things an extract from an answer of mine in
the late comp.lang.pascal UseNet newsgroup:
 >anyone point out why X**Y is not allowed in Turbo Pascal?
   The situation in TP is a left-over from standard
   Pascal. You'll recall that Pascal was originally
   devised for teaching programming, not for
   something as silly and frivolous as actually
   writing programs.  :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------

-From: ftp://garbo.uwasa.fi/pc/ts/tsfaqn45.zip Frequently Asked Questions
-Subject: Instructions about cross-posting

14. *****
 Q: What is cross-posting? How do I do it?

 A: As we all know, Usenet news have the newsgroups divided by the
topic areas. If you want your message to appear in more than one
newsgroup you can achieve this by cross-posting. If you look at the
header in the news you will notice the item Newsgroups:. Put the
names of the newsgroups in there separated by commas. Scan the
headers of almost any newsgroup, and you are bound to see how it is
done.
   The number one rule of cross-posting is that cross-posting should
never be used indiscriminately. If you feel that it is necessary to
cross-post, consider carefully your selection, and keep it down.
Avoid cross-posting to groups that are branches of the same
sub-hierarchy, that is don't cross-post to adjacent newsgroups.
   What goes for newsgroup selection in general, also applies to
cross-posting. Never cross-post to newsgroups which do not coincide
with your subject.
   There is one very important DON'T in cross-posting. Do not send
the same message separately to different newsgroups. Always use the
cross-posting facility of the news (Newsgroups:). If you repeat a
message separately in different newsgroups, the readers will have to
see your posting many times over, and will get annoyed. You have a
good chance of justifiably ending up flamed.
   I have heard that there are some newsreader programs that do not
allow editing the headers. I can only suggest contacting your system
manager or some other local guru about it. I have no further
information on this unusual dilemma since on most news programs
editing the headers is not a problem. Be careful, however, if you
edit the headers. Learn their exact requirements. If you make
mistakes, the posting may fail, and/or the followups to it by other
users may fail because of your editing errors. For example
 Newsgroups: comp.lang.pascal,comp.os.msdos.programmer,
would result in an error in following up because of the trailing
comma.

 A2: Here are a couple of further tips when you have got the hang of
cross posting. As you can see there is a "Followup-To:" field in the
news header. Sometimes you might want to direct the replies only a
to single newsgroup even if you have cross posted the original. The
rationale here is to prevent the discussion from scattering to
several newsgroups. Please consider using this option whenever you
cross post.
   Some users put the word poster in there to redirect the potential
replies directly to them by email. The problem with this method is
that even if it should work, it is not guaranteed to do so. Some
system configurations and newsreaders do not handle this correctly.
For example I usually get a bounce if I reply to such a posting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

   All the best, Timo

....................................................................
Prof. Timo Salmi   Co-moderator of news:comp.archives.msdos.announce
Moderating at ftp:// & http://garbo.uwasa.fi archives  193.166.120.5
Department of Accounting and Business Finance  ; University of Vaasa
mailto:t...@uwasa.fi  <URL:http://uwasa.fi/~ts>  ; FIN-65101,  Finland

Re:Pascal is weak!!!


Quote
In article <323b063c.1600...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, ro...@ix.netcom.com writes:

|> Hello fellow newsgroup readers!
|>
|> I am just a beginner with Pascal. My great amazement is that there is
|> no function which would allow us to raise a number to a certain power.
|> This is so retarded! This feature is very very important. Anyway, I
|> think it is stupid going through ln(x) to simply raise a number to
|> some power. No wander Pacal programs are so slow.

How do you think the languages providing that function do it ?

|> What do you people think? Does Pascal "suck"? Do you think anyone is
|> currently programming in it? Would anyone start a new project in
|> Pascal (NO!)?

I prefer pascal over most other languages as it is easy to use and
rather powerful.

 -Mike

Re:Pascal is weak!!!


Re:Pascal is weak!!!


Quote
ro...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Hello fellow newsgroup readers!
> I am just a beginner with Pascal. My great amazement is that there is
> no function which would allow us to raise a number to a certain power.
> This is so retarded! This feature is very very important.

In the ISO 10206 Extended Pascal standard there is a power operator
"**" for Real or Complex exponents and "pow" for Integer exponents.
GNU Pascal, for example, supports this.  (See the Mini FAQ for more
about this.)

Quote
> Anyway, I
> think it is stupid going through ln(x) to simply raise a number to
> some power. No wander Pacal programs are so slow.

Sorry, but your argument is simply wrong.  How do you think, even a
pocket calculator calculates powers of numbers?  Just by going through
ln(x), and so do it compilers for Real or Complex exponents.  For Integer
exponents, you can do it in a loop, but there is a more effective way
than just the obvious one ...

Concerning speed, not *languages* are slow or fast, but the code
produced by a specific compiler and the algorithm used to solve a
problem can be.  Borland's Pascal has rather poor code optimization,
but there are better compilers around.

Please don't insult a programming language without knowing what you
are talking about.

Quote
> What do you people think? Does Pascal "suck"? Do you think anyone is
> currently programming in it? Would anyone start a new project in
> Pascal (NO!)?

I am currently starting a very large project in GNU Pascal which will
include low-level programming as well as highly abstract OOP techniques.
The language is as powerful as C++, but IMHO easier to learn and to
maintain, so it could perhaps be the right choice for you, too.

    Peter

      e-mail:  peter.gerwin...@uni-essen.de
home address:  D\"usseldorfer Str. 35, 45145 Essen, Germany
         WWW:  http://agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de/~peter/

Re:Pascal is weak!!!


Re:Pascal is weak!!!


Quote
> I prefer pascal over most other languages as it is easy to use and
> rather powerful.

>  -Mike

I prefer Pascal as well. And, I too was distressed (for about 5 minutes)
with the lack of exponential functions; and, the lack of trigonometric
functions. So, I wrote myself a TPU that had all the functions I need
with the syntax I prefer (took about an hour). After that, it's just a
matter of including the TPU when necessary. I look at it as a personal
customization.

This type of customization (development of personal subroutines/
functions/ etc.) has been necessary for nearly every programming
language I use including C++, Pascal, Visual Basic, Fortran, Perl,
Autolisp. It goes with the territory. It has less to do with Pascal
"sucking", and more to do with programmer laziness/lack of creativity.

Live long, and prosper
Jerry L. Gubka

Re:Pascal is weak!!!


Quote
Mike Copeland <mrc...@primenet.com> wrote:

> > I am just a beginner with Pascal. My great amazement is that there is
> > no function which would allow us to raise a number to a certain power.
> > This is so retarded! This feature is very very important. Anyway, I
> > think it is stupid going through ln(x) to simply raise a number to
> > some power. No wander Pacal programs are so slow.

> > What do you people think? Does Pascal "suck"? Do you think anyone is
> > currently programming in it? Would anyone start a new project in
> > Pascal (NO!)?

>    I'm not sure your message is worth ANY time/effort to reply, since you
> are taking a most immature and uninformed view of Pascal - and the world
> in general.  FYI, the power function _isn't_ the sole reason for a
> computer's language existence; there are millions of useful computer
> applications which haven't used it!  There are many valid reasons for
> decrying the weaknesses/deficiencies in various languages, but you might
> consider that most computer languages have existed for years _without_
> all having the same features and/or interfaces - that's what makes a
> "horse race", so to speak.  To deny (Turbo) Pascal's overall power, ease
> of use (the IDE, Units, etc.), popularity, support among users and
> vendors, speed of compilation and execution, language simplicity,
> plethora of useful interfaces, varied i/o, stability, documentation
> (vendor and after-market), and such is truly ignoring reality.
>    There are millions of TP/BP users who feel your comments are based on
> ignorance and inexperience - I do, for one!  Many of us have been writing
> good, useful (and often important) TP/BP applications for years, and it's
> our favorite environment.  Attempting to spew inane, ininformed garbage
> such as you have, in this particular newsgroup, is ill-advised and only
> inflammatory - at best.
>    Now that you've succeeded in garnering a response, undeserved though
> it was, please crawl back under that rock you came from and leave us
> alone, to pursue worthwhile and productive things.

< Hear, Hear!

Re:Pascal is weak!!!


Quote
ro...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Hello fellow newsgroup readers!
>I am just a beginner with Pascal. My great amazement is that there is
>no function which would allow us to raise a number to a certain power.
>This is so retarded! This feature is very very important. Anyway, I
>think it is stupid going through ln(x) to simply raise a number to
>some power. No wander Pacal programs are so slow.

uhm. let's see here. C doesn't have this function. and a power()
function wouldn't speed things up at all. the only languages i know
of, in fact, with any exponentiation operators, are BASIC and Fortran.

why don't you give a language a chance before you flame it? pascal is
the most elegant, and versatile language around. strictly IMO;
actually, as far as i'm concerned Pascal and C are the same language,
and it's just a matter of preference.

Quote
>What do you people think? Does Pascal "suck"? Do you think anyone is
>currently programming in it? Would anyone start a new project in
>Pascal (NO!)?

thanks for the flamebait.

Quote
>Thank you all for your time.
>Best Regards,
>Mike Roznblyum
>P.S. Please reply via email as well.

how about both.
---
      quantum porcupine, coder, musician        |   that which is, is not
    and porcupine.  mailto:jsha...@nmsu.edu     |  that which can, can not
http://infinity.beve.blacksburg.va.us/~porcpine | that which does, does not

Re:Pascal is weak!!!


Quote
>I am just a beginner with Pascal. My great amazement is that there is
>no function which would allow us to raise a number to a certain power.
>This is so retarded! This feature is very very important. Anyway, I
>think it is stupid going through ln(x) to simply raise a number to
>some power. No wander Pacal programs are so slow.

Question: How do you think it is accomplished in other languages?  Most
languages that I have looked at do not have a built in Pow operator, they
are usually implemented in the form of Pow( num, exp ).  C does it this way,
and I think you'd be hard pressed to call well written C slow; even though
executable speed is largely compiler and machine dependent.  Likewise, it
is hard to say that well written Pascal code is slow, even Borland's.  Then
again the speed of the program could depend not on the language or compiler,
but on the programmer.

Quote
>What do you people think? Does Pascal "suck"? Do you think anyone is
>currently programming in it? Would anyone start a new project in
>Pascal (NO!)?

There are many companies and individuals that still use Pascal for
professional purposes.  My friend is one of them; Pascal is his language
of choice (next to Delphi), and he has worked in dozens of languages on
many different computers.  I am using pascal to develope a large project
and haven't had nearly as many crashes as I have had with other languages.  
There aren't that many languages, IMO, that you could truly say sucked, it
just depends on your purposes.  Some of my high school peers claim Fortran and
Cobol are not needed anymore and are too confusing and antiquated, yet I open
the jobs section of the newspaper and I see companies looking for people who
know these languages.  

Besides, what's so difficult about saying x := pow(num,exp) instead of
x := num ^ exp or x := num ** exp or whatever symbol you want to use for the
power operator?

Cheers,
  Mitch

Re:Pascal is weak!!!


Quote
ro...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Hello fellow newsgroup readers!

> I am just a beginner with Pascal. My great amazement is that there is
> no function which would allow us to raise a number to a certain power.
> This is so retarded! This feature is very very important. Anyway, I
> think it is stupid going through ln(x) to simply raise a number to
> some power. No wander Pacal programs are so slow.

> What do you people think? Does Pascal "suck"? Do you think anyone is
> currently programming in it? Would anyone start a new project in
> Pascal (NO!)?

> Thank you all for your time.

> Best Regards,
> Mike Roznblyum

> P.S. Please reply via email as well.

I think we've been trolled. The only part of witless diatribe worth
contemplating is the inivitation to e-mail him with our opinions  :-)

Re:Pascal is weak!!!


you obviously have not done any real programming.  pascal and
c are very flexable and practical enviornments for
programming.   If you continue to use pascal or c you will
soon understand and appreciate the control and flexability of
these two languages.  I Hope that you will stay with these two
enviornments,  you'll end up loving them...

In article <323b063c.1600...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
ro...@ix.netcom.com says...

Quote

>Hello fellow newsgroup readers!

>I am just a beginner with Pascal. My great amazement is that
there is
>no function which would allow us to raise a number to a certain
power.
>This is so retarded! This feature is very very important.
Anyway, I
>think it is stupid going through ln(x) to simply raise a number
to
>some power. No wander Pacal programs are so slow.

>What do you people think? Does Pascal "suck"? Do you think
anyone is
>currently programming in it? Would anyone start a new project
in
>Pascal (NO!)?

>Thank you all for your time.

>Best Regards,
>Mike Roznblyum

>P.S. Please reply via email as well.

Re:Pascal is weak!!!


In article <323D9D55.1...@P56.MCH2.siemens.net> HANS-JOACHIM SCHATZ <HANS-JOACHIM.SCH...@P56.MCH2.siemens.net> writes:

Quote
>> I am just a beginner with Pascal. My great amazement is that there is
>> no function which would allow us to raise a number to a certain power.
>> This is so retarded! This feature is very very important. Anyway, I
>> think it is stupid going through ln(x) to simply raise a number to
>> some power. No wander Pacal programs are so slow.

Hey, you're just a beginner with Pascal and you'll find that some things are
implemented as operators and some are not.  But you'll find that there are
built-in functions that do these things and that you can easily write your
own.  For example:  "Exp( Ln(x) * 2)" yields X-squared.

Quote
>> What do you people think? Does Pascal "suck"? Do you think anyone is
>> currently programming in it? Would anyone start a new project in
>> Pascal (NO!)?

Oh, give yourself some time to learn the language.  Sure, it has its warts,
but what language doesn't?  :-)  We're still living with a couple of things
that Nicklaus Wirth either didn't think of or didn't think was important...
but nonetheless a *lot* of great software has been written in this language.

Try to find a language that *doesn't* "suck" in someone's opinion, and you'll
find a language that nobody uses at all.

Quote
>I think we've been trolled. The only part of witless diatribe worth
>contemplating is the inivitation to e-mail him with our opinions  :-)

Oh sure, but he's a newbie and we need not roast him.
Go to page: [1] [2]

Other Threads