From: Matthias Buelow on
Anno Siegel wrote:

> I've been through Pascal, Modula2 and Oberon, and I agree.
> In the short run they succeeded. For a number of years, languages of
> that family were widely used, primarily in educational programming
> but also in implementing large real-life systems.

With a few relaxations and extensions, you can get a surprisingly useful
language out of the rigid Pascal, as evidenced by Turbo Pascal, one of
the most popular (and practical) programming languages in the late 80ies
/ start of the 90ies.

mkb.
From: Andrea Griffini on
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 16:07:58 +0200, Matthias Buelow <mkb(a)incubus.de>
wrote:

>With a few relaxations and extensions, you can get a surprisingly useful
>language out of the rigid Pascal, as evidenced by Turbo Pascal, one of
>the most popular (and practical) programming languages in the late 80ies
>/ start of the 90ies.

It was not a language. It was a product in the hand of a single
company. The difference is that a product can die at the snaps
of a marketroid, no matter how nice or how diffuse it is.

Andrea
From: Matthias Buelow on
Andrea Griffini wrote:

>>With a few relaxations and extensions, you can get a surprisingly useful
>>language out of the rigid Pascal, as evidenced by Turbo Pascal, one of
>>the most popular (and practical) programming languages in the late 80ies
>>/ start of the 90ies.
>
> It was not a language. It was a product in the hand of a single
> company. The difference is that a product can die at the snaps
> of a marketroid, no matter how nice or how diffuse it is.

Of course it is a language, just not a standardized one (if you include
Borland's extensions that make it practical). But does that matter?
With the exception of Scheme, none of the languages that are the object
of discussion of the newsgroups this thread is being posted to, are
standardized. Yet they are all quite popular.

And btw., I haven't used Pascal in a dozen years but my latest info is
that Turbo Pascal still lives in the form of "Delphi" for the Windows
platform. Surely not "dead" as I understand it.

mkb.
From: Greg Ewing on
Anno Siegel wrote:
> These languages had an axe to grind. They were designed (by Niklas
> Wirth) at a time of a raging discussion whether structured programming
> (goto-less programming, mostly) is practical. Their goal was to prove
> that it is, and in doing so the restrictive aspects of the language
> were probably a bit overdone.

This doesn't sound right. That argument might still have
been active at the inception of Pascal, I'm not sure. But
Pascal *does* have a goto statement, although you were
punished a little for using it (numeric labels only, which
had to be declared before use). And surely no-one was arguing
against structured programming by the time Modula came along,
much less Oberon.

The restrictiveness of these languages was mainly in the
type system, which is quite a different issue. And, as has
been pointed out, relaxing the type system of Pascal just
a little has resulted in a very successful family of
languages (UCSD, Turbo, Apple Pascal, etc.)

--
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept,
University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand
http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/~greg
From: Dale King on
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 06:09:43 +0200, Tassilo v. Parseval
> <tassilo.von.parseval(a)rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>>I am only familiar with its successor Modula-3 which, as far as I
>>understand, is Modula-2 with uppercased keywords and some OO-notion
>>bolted onto it (I still recall 'BRANDED' references).
>
>
> Modula-2 also overused caps, I recall the irratation I found
> programing it was irratating, streaching my finger to hit the shift
> key or taking me hands of the home keys to bump the CAPSLOCK key
> quick became phisically painfull.

I believe the variant we used was case insensitive for variables and
keywords.

--
Dale King
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Prev: swift MT940 files
Next: Is there neq for strings?