Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3?
in [ADA]
|
From: Martin Krischik on 26 Mar 2010 04:05 Am 24.03.2010, 21:00 Uhr, schrieb Warren <ve3wwg(a)gmail.com>: > Otherwise, I still smell an interpreted > "language". As I already pointed out: I only say it is an interpreted *language* if the majority of *implementations* are interpreted. There are two different overlapping groups but they are not identical. Martin -- Martin Krischik
From: Martin Krischik on 26 Mar 2010 04:20 Am 25.03.2010, 14:45 Uhr, schrieb Warren <ve3wwg(a)gmail.com>: > The fact that it was _popular_ means you have to deal with it > when making statements about the language's performance. It was never as popular as Turbo Pascal. I can think of 2 p-code pascals: The original With pascal and USCS Pascal. I can think of five which compile native: Kyan Pascal, Oregon Pascal, GNU-Pascal, Free-Pascal and last but most important one: Turbo Pascal now Delphi. The sales and use of the later probably dwarfing the combined rest. And that is out of the top of my head without google research. You are just plain wrong. Pascal was not designed as an interpreted language, most implementations are not interpreted the most popular implementation is not interpreted. You can turn in any way you like - the result is always the same: Pascal is not an interpreted language. Regards Martin -- Martin Krischik
From: blmblm on 26 Mar 2010 11:54 (Setting follow-ups back to the original cross-posting, since I don't read comp.lang.ada .... ) In article <Xns9D4482A264D8BWarrensBlatherings(a)188.40.43.245>, Warren <ve3wwg(a)gmail.com> wrote: > balson expounded in news:4BA8BA91.4050905(a)cherrystonesoftware.com: > > > Andrea Taverna wrote: > >> Hi folks! > > [snip] > >> In the past I used C, but now I have decided to change language. > >> I'm looking for a "better" one. [ snip ] > > IOW, stay away from the likes of Java, C#, Pascal. Unless you > > have a > > very specific reason for going in that direction. Your performance > > will suffer. > > Jim > > I don't think many people would be surprised by these results. > After all Java, C# and Pascal (variants) are still largely > interpreted languages, even if they use some sort of compiled > intermediate code. It's my impression that most/all current implementations of Java do "just-in-time" compiling (of the compiled intermediate code) to native code, and if that's true (certainly true of some of them), does the language really count as "interpreted"? Just sayin', maybe. > But each "tool" has its own place in the toolbox. Can't disagree with that, though! -- B. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
From: Warren on 26 Mar 2010 15:18 blmblm(a)myrealbox.com expounded in news:8143krF7lhU1(a)mid.individual.net: ... >> > IOW, stay away from the likes of Java, C#, Pascal. Unless you >> > have a >> > very specific reason for going in that direction. Your performance >> > will suffer. >> > Jim >> >> I don't think many people would be surprised by these results. >> After all Java, C# and Pascal (variants) are still largely >> interpreted languages, even if they use some sort of compiled >> intermediate code. > > It's my impression that most/all current implementations of Java > do "just-in-time" compiling (of the compiled intermediate code) > to native code, and if that's true (certainly true of some of > them), does the language really count as "interpreted"? Just > sayin', maybe. The "JIT" business is just a distraction IMO. Before any "compilation" occurs, something else (the interpreter) is orchestrating things. Even the JIT "sections of code" are invoked on the behalf of byte code by the "monitoring" process (i.e. the interpreter). So unless you can get rid of that "managing process", you still have what used to be called a "monitor process", that is outside of the O/S. IOW, an interpreter. In CP/M, the monitor was the O/S ;) but I digress. Warren
From: Warren on 26 Mar 2010 15:21
Martin Krischik expounded in news:op.u951g6eyz25lew(a)macpro-eth1.krischik.com: > Am 25.03.2010, 14:45 Uhr, schrieb Warren <ve3wwg(a)gmail.com>: > >> The fact that it was _popular_ means you have to deal with it >> when making statements about the language's performance. > > It was never as popular as Turbo Pascal. I can think of 2 p-code > pascals: The original With pascal and USCS Pascal. I can think of > five which compile native... > > Martin It was never a popularity contest ;-) The fact that people see it as "popular" (whether first place or last), means that a mention of Pascal needs to be a qualified one. Warren |