On 30/08/2012 09:04, Arioch wrote: > > Ralf A. Quint wrote >> >> At 12:09 AM 8/30/2012, michael.vancanneyt@ wrote: >>> They are IMHO a negation of what pascal stands for. If your >>> programming >> +1 >> > > Well, the same should be told about everything modern pascal is. > > Open and dynamic arrays, pointer math, objects, generics, even > units. It was all breaking the initial Pascal strictness and > rigidness. > > Because what was counted "large blocks" deserving their own explicit > naming back then - now seems trivial small detail. > > Generics are alien to Pascal no more no less than closures. >
You seem to be very rigid over your view of Pascal yourself. With everything you quoted above (but pointer math) Pascal is not a toy language any more; unfortunately many recall it as such and keep pondering about the P language... (hey, I first had programming classes in middle school on TP6.0 when the strongest machine in computer class was a 386SX 16MHz; that the teacher had, we banged on 286... we had some intro to (Borland) C(++) later on, but after Pascal, C seemed so obfuscated, I gave up on it and only write small C programs for microcontrollers where it is as rigid as Pascal :J ) MvC has a point in saying 'pointer math is what spoils it' - pointer math is itself a 'feature' dragged into C++ from 'c', the verbose assembler :J L. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
