Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #14716
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: C++ vs Pascal |
| Date | 2012-03-03 08:02 -0700 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <jitbsq$3gf$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink) |
| References | <jil45d$h3a$2@dont-email.me> <d7422e87-527a-42bf-9cff-cd921cfbf4c7@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> <jil8ea$7vu$1@dont-email.me> <8IqdnWr785m_ANPSnZ2dnUVZ8kOdnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk> |
On 2/29/2012 2:48 PM, Andy Champ wrote: > On 29/02/2012 13:15, Man-wai Chang wrote: >> But Pascal has no practical value at all. Besides, learning to tame a >> devil is more important than believing in a "good" tool. :) > > It's wrong to say it has no value. I used to work on a Pascal compiler > that was written in Pascal... > > But mostly it's a simplified teaching language. You can show beginners > how to do things without teaching them bad habits, and they can produce > simple programs quite quickly. > > It may be that there are better things now; I'm not in teaching. My son > learned Java as a first language. > kind of funny is I started getting into programming a little while before Java came out (I started messing with a lot of this stuff sometime around 3rd grade IIRC). some-odd years later, amid its time of huge hype, I already knew C, and messed around with Java, but didn't really like what I saw: it was very painful/awkward to use, and slow as hell... they have since added a number of usability-improving features (inner and anonymous classes, "import static", ...), and made Java much faster, but I still find it kind of awkward and lame. granted, I did recently go and look back at some code (in C) I had written long ago (back when I was in high-school, ~ 12 years ago now), observed that the quality was actually fairly poor by my current standards. in many areas, a lot of the same code remains intact, albeit often in heavily-modified forms. sadly though, much time has gone by and little notable has happened...
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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