Re: C++ vs Pascal

From	Brian Drummond <brian@shapes.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c++
Subject	Re: C++ vs Pascal
Date	2012-02-29 23:50 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<jimdjo$sm0$2@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<jil45d$h3a$2@dont-email.me> <osj229-482.ln1@hurricane.fredriksson.dy.fi>

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:02:32 +0200, Donkey Hottie wrote:

> 29.2.2012 14:02, Man-wai Chang kirjoitti:
>> 
>> Are schools and universities in the States still teaching Pascal?
>> 
>> Isn't C++ as good as Pascal?
>> 
>> 
> "Standard" Pascal is not much. Microsoft had Pascal, and it was strange
> with all thos QQ.. names in it. It died.
> 
> Pacal has evolved. Object Pascal as in Delphi and others is quite good.
> I think Java learned much about Borland about language and library.
> 
> Ada was maybe the next generation of Pascal, but it is quite huge, and
> it's golder era is in history. It never really took right with Objects
> and OO. It is said to be OP, not OO. Ada still lives in Oracle offerings
> as a subset called PL/SQL.

Incorrect on several points. Ada is huge compared with Pascal, but fairly 
small, clean and simple compared with C++. Since 1995 it has been as 
fully object-oriented as C++ can claim to be, though you may have been 
thinking of the 1983 dialect which (as you say) never took right with 
objects. The 2005 dialect allows more familiar-looking expression of OO 
programming (object.method notation) and so on. 

Most rational objections to Ada are based in the 1980s - an Ada compiler 
can bring a 1980's workstation to its knees, and who needs things like 
multi-tasking at the language level, it's not like there are any multi-
core CPUs around (except the 370) right? And Ada compilers are too 
expensive...

Now that any self-respecting build of gcc includes Ada, things are a bit 
different.

As to when its golden age was, is, or will be, it's probably too soon to 
say.

- Brian

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

C++ vs Pascal Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2012-02-29 20:02 +0800
  Re: C++ vs Pascal gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-02-29 04:12 -0800
    Re: C++ vs Pascal Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2012-02-29 21:15 +0800
      Re: C++ vs Pascal Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2012-02-29 22:26 +0800
      Re: C++ vs Pascal Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-29 08:42 -0800
        Re: C++ vs Pascal Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2012-03-01 01:32 +0800
      Re: C++ vs Pascal Andy Champ <no.way@nospam.invalid> - 2012-02-29 21:48 +0000
        Re: C++ vs Pascal BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-03 08:02 -0700
          Re: C++ vs Pascal BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-03 08:04 -0700
    Re: C++ vs Pascal Mike McCarty <mcmccarty@gmail.com> - 2012-02-29 06:26 -0800
      Re: C++ vs Pascal Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2012-02-29 22:28 +0800
      Re: C++ vs Pascal Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-29 08:49 -0800
        Re: C++ vs Pascal Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2012-02-29 19:56 +0100
        Re: C++ vs Pascal Quint Rankid <qbr567@gmail.com> - 2012-02-29 10:31 -0800
          Re: C++ vs Pascal Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-02-29 21:25 +0000
            Re: C++ vs Pascal Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-01 05:04 -0800
              Re: C++ vs Pascal gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-03-01 06:29 -0800
                Re: C++ vs Pascal Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2012-03-01 23:07 +0800
                Re: C++ vs Pascal nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-03-02 00:27 -0800
          Re: C++ vs Pascal Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-01 05:03 -0800
            Re: C++ vs Pascal Mike McCarty <mcmccarty@gmail.com> - 2012-03-01 06:54 -0800
              Re: C++ vs Pascal nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-03-02 00:41 -0800
                Re: C++ vs Pascal BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-03 09:41 -0700
              Re: C++ vs Pascal Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2012-03-02 23:24 +0800
                Re: C++ vs Pascal nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-03-03 06:40 -0800
                Re: C++ vs Pascal glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-03-03 20:57 +0000
                Re: C++ vs Pascal BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-03 15:19 -0700
                Re: C++ vs Pascal glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-03-03 22:52 +0000
                Re: C++ vs Pascal BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-03 17:12 -0700
            Re: C++ vs Pascal Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2012-03-02 09:55 +0900
            Re: C++ vs Pascal Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-03-02 11:03 +0000
              Re: C++ vs Pascal nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-03-02 05:01 -0800
          Re: C++ vs Pascal BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-03 08:56 -0700
    Re: C++ vs Pascal BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-03 07:49 -0700
  Re: C++ vs Pascal Quint Rankid <qbr567@gmail.com> - 2012-02-29 10:20 -0800
    Re: C++ vs Pascal Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2012-03-01 02:26 +0800
    Re: C++ vs Pascal Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-02-29 21:36 +0000
    Re: C++ vs Pascal "Asger Joergensen" <Junk@Asger-P.dk> - 2012-02-29 23:24 +0000
  Re: C++ vs Pascal Donkey Hottie <donkey@fredriksson.dy.fi> - 2012-03-01 00:02 +0200
    Re: C++ vs Pascal Brian Drummond <brian@shapes.demon.co.uk> - 2012-02-29 23:50 +0000

csiph-web