Walter Bright wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
retard wrote:
Fri, 01 Jan 2010 12:19:25 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
When I then picked up K+R C, I never wrote another line of Pascal.
It so
soured me on Pascal that I never got on the later bandwagons of Modula
II, Delphi, TurboPascal, etc. Never even looked at them.
The programming-language-as-religion problem exists only in your
imagination. I fail to see Pascal as a religion. I don't know what
the pure Pascal compiler you're talking about is, but ordinary
Pascal is just another procedural systems programming language like
C. It has a bit different syntax ("begin end" vs "{}" and so on),
somewhat different rules for some default data types, but it's more
or less C wrapped in a syntactic mask.
Pick up a copy of "Pascal User Manual and Report." That's pure
Pascal. It's also quite useless. Your program has to be all in one
file, for instance. For another, writing I/O always appends a
newline. Try writing binary files with that. There was no way to get
at the bit representation of a type. Etc.
That's all gone in modern Pascal dialects. Delphi is very similar to
D; it's practically a Pascal version of D. The OOP features are the
same, except for some small differences, which make Delphi a bit more
flexible (virtual and named constructors...).
The problem was, in the 80's, pure Pascal was useless and so needed
dialects. Every Pascal vendor added a boatload of extensions, all
incompatible with each other. None had enough market share to create a
de-facto standard.
All this left a huge opening for C, and the rest, as they say, is
history. The market window closed for Pascal.
Yeah, as it was discussed in this thread. I was just posting this,
because you tell so often about your bad experiences with Pascal.
I context of retard's posting I also found it funny how the history of
programming languages seems to repeat itself.
