In <[email protected]>, on 10/01/2013
at 01:21 PM, David Crayford <[email protected]> said:
>I would have to humbly disagree. Pascals type system alone is far
>superior.
The original Pascal type system was an abomination; it was only after
the ISO dealt with conformant array parameters that the language was
generally useful without nonstandard enhancements.
>more expressive features
Shirley you gest; Pascal was a minimalist language for teaching
purposes.
>Pascals successors
Remedied some flaws in Pascal, but they're hardly relevant to the
quality of Pascal itself.
>Wouldn't it be nice to have a dynamic string type in PL/I?
CHAR VARYING came a lot closer than anything Pascal had, and ALGOL 68
had dynamic arrays before Pascal existed, much less its successors.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
