|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 10 July 2002 00H:33, Noah Silva wrote:
> > > > But I'd rather keep using all C-style functions only and only use c++
> > > > for improving things that weren't in c all ready. My point is I don't
> > > > want to have printf and cout b/c I think it's a mess. I guess the
> > > > answer to this is not to use C-style functions at all.
> > >
> > > If you aren't going to make any C-style function calls, then what
> > > system library do you plan on using?
> >
> > I get it. Everything is in c anyway, but other languages have a place.
>
> Well this is something that I think is a valid point, and needs to be
> dealt with. Borland has dealt with it by:
> a.) Providing pre-done pascal interfaces for common system functions and
> DLLs.
> b.) Pascal has pascal string to C string (ASCIIZ) conversion routines
> standard.
> etc.
>
> But still... I find some windows DLL I want to use, and I have to find
> the C header and translate it. There are automated tools to do this, so
> it's not a big deal, but I think it needs to be thought about. The
> reason SmallTalk and Eiffel, etc. aren't useful is because... I can
> download a library in Pascal or C for OpenGL, Lotus Notes, SCSI
> interfaces, MySQL, Gnome, etc. Where is this stuff for SmallTalk?
> nowhere last time I checked. It -is- there is many if not most cases
> for pascal, and what isn't there is easy to port.
I haven't really used SmallTalk or Eiffel. When I've looked at SmallTalk, it
was not that easy for me to read, personally. But, that's probably mainly
just unfamiliarity with the basic syntax.
I did come accross a reference to a company still promoting Eiffel products,
including EiffelStudio:
http://www.eiffel.com
Now, this is definitely NOT a recommendation to use Eiffel. I don't personally
know anybody that uses it. Thought it was interesting purely as a curiousity.
>
> I would like to see more advanced [compiled] languages thrive, but there
> needs to be an easy to pick what you want to use, and that means that we
> need to have libraries that can easily inter-operate, and ways to use
> existing bindings. This to me, is the positive effect that including C
> in C++ had. This was why I said it would be interesting to have a
> pascal compiler that would let me declare C procedures and/or data
> types.
If you want to do this very thing from ObjectPascal, why do you seem to make
it out to be such a bad thing that it can be done from C++?
>
> -- noah silva
>
>
Cheers,
Jason Nocks
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAj0slKEACgkQ3CryLfCgqRndRACfbRG27qKbZbEVi1tPOSux7CT4
lo0An21pAOl0cSNpS4AkZMBn7QEEqKxu
=Omgh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
______________________________________________________________________
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
|
|