|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
On Wed, 2002-07-03 at 22:50, Bradley Molnar wrote:
> My dad thinks that learning pascal is stupid -- he refers to it as an
> academic language with no real uses. Also hates C, C++, and Java (for no
> real reason that I can understand). This might be where some of the groans
I have some respect for C. Very little for C++ (it's just broken! use
Objective C!), and Java I would like if it could compile Java language
to Binary native code. Note that java stole a LOT from object pascal.
> come from. My dad has been programing stuff on bank computers and
> mainframes for at least 20 years (he is also partially responsible for the
> 9/9/99 problem -- as, they thought #1 it was a cool date to have the thing
> stop working on and #2 they never expected the programs to still be in use
> anywhere near that long).
>
> As far as Basic -- a friend of mine absolutly loves the language. His main
I started with basic, but basic does too much at runtime. Even in
Pascal, the more you use features like Variant types, dynamic arrays,
dynamic strings, etc., the more is done at runtime, and the less is
known at compile time, so the more of a performance penalty your program
will have. Then add that it's interpreted.
> problem with it is that there really isn't a good compiler for it. The
This is true, but then it wasn't designed to be compiled.
> compiler he has can't compile anything larger than some insanely small size
> (like 64K or something). Basic might not be such a bad language if there
> were better compilers -- but, who really wants to work on it?
Basic is also very lacking in some ways. There are many things oyu just
can't do.. at all. For programs that just do string I/O, it's ok, but
for real work... it's limited and slow. I started using basic on
commodore plus/4, then moved to QuickBasic on PC-DOS. Then QuickPascal
(which _sucked_) on PC-DOS, then TurboPascal on PC-DOS (which ruled).
Since then I learned C and C++ and objective C and lisp and rpl and
other odd things.
Anyway... tell your dad I design financial systems with Delphi (which is
pascal based), maybe he'll fall over ;)
Why do I use it?
a.) It compiles.
b.) It's quick to develop in.
c.) It's very portable.
d.) It handles string types well.
e.) It's very easy to find errors in.
f.) I know if well.
-- noah silva
> -brad
>
> ---
> Everybody loves to love you when you're far away -- Better than Ezra, At the
> Stars
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: plug-admin@lists.phillylinux.org
> [mailto:plug-admin@lists.phillylinux.org]On Behalf Of Paul
> Sent: Thursday, 4 July 2002 12:42 PM
> To: plug@lists.phillylinux.org
> Subject: Re: [PLUG] Pascal?
>
>
> I remember hearing people referring to Pascal as a concept learning or
> teaching language. I don't hear much about it these days.
>
> Basic suggests basic, and it's a Micro$oft language.
>
> >Since I heard the groans around the room, I have to ask: Why?
> >
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org
> Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
> General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org
> Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
> General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
>
______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|