Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #10110 > unrolled thread

Is Pascal utterly useless?

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

Contents

  Is Pascal utterly useless? Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2019-08-02 15:05 +0100
    Re: Is Pascal utterly useless? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-08-02 15:57 +0000
      Re: Is Pascal utterly useless? Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2019-08-02 17:55 +0100
    Re: Is Pascal utterly useless? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-08-02 23:07 +0100
      Re: Is Pascal utterly useless? Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2019-08-03 15:58 +0100
        Re: Is Pascal utterly useless? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-08-06 15:57 +0100
          Re: Is Pascal utterly useless? nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2019-08-06 16:55 +0000
          Re: Is Pascal utterly useless? Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2019-08-07 14:33 +0100
      Re: Is Pascal utterly useless? Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2019-08-03 14:58 +0100
    Re: Is Pascal utterly useless? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-08-02 16:56 -0700
    Re: Is Pascal utterly useless? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-08-03 09:33 +0100
    Re: Is Pascal utterly useless? Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2019-08-06 06:43 -0700
    Re: Is Pascal utterly useless? Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2019-08-07 15:13 +0100
    Re: Is Pascal utterly useless? Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2019-09-02 20:38 +0100
      Re: Is Pascal utterly useless? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-09-02 16:02 -0500
      Re: Is Pascal utterly useless? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-04 16:15 +0100
        Re: Is Pascal utterly useless? Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2019-09-06 19:28 +0100
          Re: Is Pascal utterly useless? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-08 15:12 +0100

#10110 — Is Pascal utterly useless?

Does ISO 7185 Pascal require program source to be just one file?  And if 
it does, doesn't that make it an utterly useless language?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#10111

On 2019-08-02, Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Does ISO 7185 Pascal require program source to be just one file?  And if 
> it does, doesn't that make it an utterly useless language?

Where does it says that?

-- 
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec
Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi 
bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10112

Melzzzzz wrote:
> On 2019-08-02, Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Does ISO 7185 Pascal require program source to be just one file?  And if
>> it does, doesn't that make it an utterly useless language?
> 
> Where does it says that?
> 

Maybe it doesn't, but I'm looking at Welsh and Hay's /A model 
implementation of standard Pascal/ which contains (supposedly) the 
source of an ISO 7185 compliant Pascal compiler, and their program does 
not allow multiple source files.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10113

Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> writes:

> Does ISO 7185 Pascal require program source to be just one file?  And
> if it does, doesn't that make it an utterly useless language?

In a nutshell, yes,  It's ISO 10206 -- Extended Pascal that adds
modules.

(Caveat: not a Pascal expert.)
-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10122

Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Does ISO 7185 Pascal require program source to be just one file?  And
>> if it does, doesn't that make it an utterly useless language?
> 
> In a nutshell, yes,  It's ISO 10206 -- Extended Pascal that adds
> modules.
> 
> (Caveat: not a Pascal expert.)
> 

It seems strange to me that Pascal was invented to teach programming, 
but I can't imagine a university-level course in programming that didn't 
have at least one problem requiring a group of students to produce a 
program with each member doing a bit of the coding.  Which rather makes 
Pascal useless for its original purpose, never mind industrial work.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10126

Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> writes:

> It seems strange to me that Pascal was invented to teach programming,
> but I can't imagine a university-level course in programming that
> didn't have at least one problem requiring a group of students to
> produce a program with each member doing a bit of the coding.  Which
> rather makes Pascal useless for its original purpose, never mind
> industrial work.

The world of programming was a very different one in 1970.  Why would
you want students to learn the JCL magic that tells the CDC 6000
operator to install the tape that contains the compiled module from
student A just so that it can be linked with student B's code when they
can just put the card desks together?  Cooperative programming was
leaving a blue card sticking out of the deck where that routine you
didn't write should go!

By the time interactive editors, PCs and cheap multi-user mini systems
came along, every actual Pascal implementation had some sort of support
for modules.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10128

On Tue, 06 Aug 2019 15:57:26 +0100, Ben Bacarisse
<ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:

>Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> It seems strange to me that Pascal was invented to teach programming,
>> but I can't imagine a university-level course in programming that
>> didn't have at least one problem requiring a group of students to
>> produce a program with each member doing a bit of the coding.  Which
>> rather makes Pascal useless for its original purpose, never mind
>> industrial work.
>
>The world of programming was a very different one in 1970.  Why would

Even into the 1980s. Primary schools were just starting to get 8-bit
micros when I was 15 years or so, UCSD Pascal was the language, and it
was all one-person assignments. Team projects didn't start showing up
until college, by that time it was PCs with Borland software.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10130

Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> writes:
> 
>> It seems strange to me that Pascal was invented to teach programming,
>> but I can't imagine a university-level course in programming that
>> didn't have at least one problem requiring a group of students to
>> produce a program with each member doing a bit of the coding.  Which
>> rather makes Pascal useless for its original purpose, never mind
>> industrial work.
> 
> The world of programming was a very different one in 1970.  Why would

I don't go back that far.  I entered the world of programming in 1982 (I 
had done a bit of BASIC/Fortran/ICL1900 assembler ('Plan' was it 
called?) programming at uni, but nothing in anger) and I used Coral 66 
and bits of Intel assembler which were made for separate compilation and 
linkage.

> you want students to learn the JCL magic that tells the CDC 6000
> operator to install the tape that contains the compiled module from
> student A just so that it can be linked with student B's code when they
> can just put the card desks together?  Cooperative programming was
> leaving a blue card sticking out of the deck where that routine you
> didn't write should go!
> 
> By the time interactive editors, PCs and cheap multi-user mini systems
> came along, every actual Pascal implementation had some sort of support
> for modules.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10123

Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Does ISO 7185 Pascal require program source to be just one file?  And
>> if it does, doesn't that make it an utterly useless language?
> 
> In a nutshell, yes,  It's ISO 10206 -- Extended Pascal that adds
> modules.
> 
> (Caveat: not a Pascal expert.)
> 

It seems strange to me that Pascal was invented to teach programming, 
but I can't imagine a university-level course in programming that didn't 
have at least one problem requiring a group of students to produce a 
program with each member doing a bit of the coding.  Which rather makes 
Pascal useless for its original purpose, never mind industrial work.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10114

On Friday, 2 August 2019 16:05:39 UTC+2, Peter Percival  wrote:

> Does ISO 7185 Pascal require program source to be just one file?  And if 
> it does, doesn't that make it an utterly useless language?

Get Delphi Community, you fucking prick.

Julio

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10115

On 02/08/2019 15:05, Peter Percival wrote:
> Does ISO 7185 Pascal require program source to be just one file?

I'll take Ben's word for that.

> And if 
> it does, doesn't that make it an utterly useless language?

No, of course not. ISO 7185, as far as I can make out, dates back to 
1983. So, even though Pascal has been an "utterly useless language" ever 
since that date, it didn't stop the later development of commercial 
Pascal variants, and the existence of the standard means that people 
moving from one variant to another (eg after a job switch) can at least 
hit the ground running, even if they are not completely familiar with 
the new variant.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10125

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 7:05:39 AM UTC-7, Peter Percival wrote:
> Does ISO 7185 Pascal require program source to be just one file?  And if 
> it does, doesn't that make it an utterly useless language?

True story. A long time ago I took an introduction to programming class that was taught my some 40 year old graduate student who couldn't land a job as a programmer. Likewise, no Ph.D. program would admit him.

So anyways, on the first day of class he asked us what types of programming languages that we heard about. Everyone rattled of your typical (imperative) mainstream programming languages like C++, Ruby, PHP, and Python. When he came to me, I said Haskell. He said "Don't you mean Pascal?". I told him "No."

I guess he looked stupid because he got an attitude with me the rest of the term.

On a funny side note, the guy ended up moving to Texas, changed his last name to his wife's name, and now works on a farm.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10131

Peter Percival wrote:
> Does ISO 7185 Pascal require program source to be just one file?  And if 
> it does, doesn't that make it an utterly useless language?

And since Wirth invented Modula, Modula-2, Oberon and Oberon-2 after he 
invented Pascal, he must have known it was no good.  (What I think is, 
if you're going to say something controversial, you should really push 
the boat out.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10174

Peter Percival wrote:
> Does ISO 7185 Pascal require program source to be just one file?  And if 
> it does, doesn't that make it an utterly useless language?

Another thing I don't like about Pascal is its dishonesty.  One cannot 
write in Pascal a function like Pascal's write.  How dare the language 
designer help himself to facilities that he denies users?

One thing wrong with write is its variable number of parameters.  In C 
printf also has a variable number of parameters but at least C permits 
the writing of such functions.  Am I making sense?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10175

On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 20:38:10 +0100, Peter Percival
<peterxpercival@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Peter Percival wrote:
>> Does ISO 7185 Pascal require program source to be just one file?  And if 
>> it does, doesn't that make it an utterly useless language?
>
>Another thing I don't like about Pascal is its dishonesty.  One cannot 
>write in Pascal a function like Pascal's write.  How dare the language 
>designer help himself to facilities that he denies users?
>
>One thing wrong with write is its variable number of parameters.  In C 
>printf also has a variable number of parameters but at least C permits 
>the writing of such functions.  Am I making sense?
>


Plenty of languages have constructs that can't be replicated within
the language.  Quick: implement your for-like own looping construct in
C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10176

Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> writes:

> Peter Percival wrote:
>> Does ISO 7185 Pascal require program source to be just one file?  And
>> if it does, doesn't that make it an utterly useless language?
>
> Another thing I don't like about Pascal is its dishonesty.  One cannot
> write in Pascal a function like Pascal's write.  How dare the language
> designer help himself to facilities that he denies users?

I feel you pain, but you sound more exercised by this than it really
merits!  There's an excellent book (old now) that compares languages by
examining the extent to which they could implement their own IO
facilities.  It's a very revealing point of view.  Sadly I can't
remember anything else about it.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10178

Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Peter Percival wrote:
>>> Does ISO 7185 Pascal require program source to be just one file?  And
>>> if it does, doesn't that make it an utterly useless language?
>>
>> Another thing I don't like about Pascal is its dishonesty.  One cannot
>> write in Pascal a function like Pascal's write.  How dare the language
>> designer help himself to facilities that he denies users?
> 
> I feel you pain, but you sound more exercised by this than it really
> merits!

Probably!

>  There's an excellent book (old now) that compares languages by
> examining the extent to which they could implement their own IO
> facilities.  It's a very revealing point of view.  Sadly I can't
> remember anything else about it.

If you should come to remember its title & author let me know, I'd like 
to read it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10184

Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> writes:

> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
<cut>
>>  There's an excellent book (old now) that compares languages by
>> examining the extent to which they could implement their own IO
>> facilities.  It's a very revealing point of view.  Sadly I can't
>> remember anything else about it.
>
> If you should come to remember its title & author let me know, I'd
> like to read it.

Sorry, can't find it.  I suspect I may have conflated two things, a
paper or technical report by Ron Morrison and a book by D M Harland
"Polymorphic programming Languages – Design And Implementation".  That
book (if I recall correctly) advocates for designs where nothing is
privileged, but the "how well can a language implement its own IO" is
something else.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web