From: Martin Krischik on
Am 26.03.2010, 19:24 Uhr, schrieb Warren <ve3wwg(a)gmail.com>:

> Martin Krischik expounded in
> news:op.u950lqpyz25lew(a)macpro-eth1.krischik.com:
>
>> Am 24.03.2010, 17:57 Uhr, schrieb Adam Beneschan <adam(a)irvine.com>:
>>
>>> So it's executed by an interpreter. That doesn't make the *language*
>>> compiled into p-code an INTERPRETED LANGUAGE, which is what we were
>>> talking about---not any old "interpreter".
>>
>> My personal definition is that a language is interpreted if the
>> majority of implementations use an interpreter. And Pascal would not
>> be among the list.
>>
>> Martin
>
> I still maintain you need to be specific about it. I will
> agree that they all were not interpreted. But at the same
> time it is equally wrong to imply that they were all compiled.

I make it simple for you:

Pascal: language, not interpreted
UCSD-Pascal, language *implementation*, interpreted.

As you say: you have to be specific.

Martin

--
Martin Krischik
From: Warren on
Martin Krischik expounded in
news:op.u996t11wz25lew(a)macpro-eth1.krischik.com:

> That would be "saw" it as popular. UCSD Pascal is dead long ago. You
> are clinging on the very last straw here to keep your argument up!
>
> Martin

I disagree. ;-)

Warren
From: Warren on
Martin Krischik expounded in news:op.u9958tkwz25lew(a)macpro-
eth1.krischik.com:

>> I still maintain you need to be specific about it. I will
>> agree that they all were not interpreted. But at the same
>> time it is equally wrong to imply that they were all compiled.
>
> I make it simple for you:
>
> Pascal: language, not interpreted
> UCSD-Pascal, language *implementation*, interpreted.
>
> As you say: you have to be specific.
>
> Martin

The reason it's important here to distinguish, is that one might
assume "interpreted" by its quoted performance level. I recognize
that p-code went out of fashion a long time ago, but for clarity..

"The prosecution rests."

Warren
From: David Thompson on
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:33:46 -0700 (PDT), Adam Beneschan
<adam(a)irvine.com> wrote:
<snip>
> I wish I could! I've been in this business for over 30 years and I
> still haven't figured out how not to make mistakes. <snip>
> So bounds checking is a good thing. Even so, it's good to have a
> choice. Pascal and Ada, as usually implemented, let you choose
> between the extra safety of bounds checks and the added performance of
> eliminating them in programs that have been tested. C doesn't.

Ada has standard-in-language option, so all implementations must
provide it; PL/I same. Pascal doesn't require checking, but common
practice is yes or option. Fortran doesn't require it, and common
practice is no, but there have long been some that do, especially
since F90 made unnecessary (but did not entirely remove) the
assumed-size' (aterisk) form that most discourages it.

C doesn't prohibit it, but encourages pointer use that makes it more
difficult; there have been bounds-checking C implementations, but in
the dancing bear category.

From: Martin Krischik on
Am 31.03.2010, 08:55 Uhr, schrieb David Thompson
<dave.thompson2(a)verizon.net>:

> Ada has standard-in-language option, so all implementations must
> provide it; PL/I same. Pascal doesn't require checking, but common
> practice is yes or option.

Just noticed that the three languages quoted also lets you specify the
base index. That is you can specify an array starting at 1980 and ending
at 2010. And before the performance freaks panic: If you have a statistic
application collecting data from 1980 to 2010 then a 0 based index will
only give you a lot of extra work but no performance advantage.

Martin
--
Martin Krischik