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

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #14720

Re: C++ vs Pascal

Show all headers | View raw

On 3/2/2012 1:41 AM, nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 1, 2012 2:54:50 PM UTC, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 1, 2012 7:03:44 AM UTC-6, Nick Keighley wrote:
>
>>> I'm-not-starting-a-language-war-but
>>>       Lisp has:-
>>>         - unusual syntax
>>>         - it's a very big langauge
>>>         - little out-of-the-box support for modern programming (GUIs,
>>> web, etc.)
>>
>> Lisp's syntax is not unusual - it's simple.  Extremely simple and intuitive.
>
> ok it's simple. It's /also/ unusual. One mans "intuitive" is another mans.... But we have fallen into pantomime mode.
>

hence, why although I did implement a Scheme variant at one point, my 
next major language (implemented not long after), switched to a 
JavaScript based syntax...

my current language is arguably a direct descendant though, although 
there have been a number of changes over the years (some syntax, mostly 
semantic).


>> Lisp as a basic language is small, very small.
>
> Common Lisp may have a very small core but I've never found it particularly easy to identify.
>
>> You can teach both the syntax and all of the basic constructs in ~1 hour to a reasonably competent CS student.
>
> probably. But then basic C or Pascal or Python wouldn't take too long either.
>

yeah, and also most people showing up aren't exactly "blank slates" either.


>> Enough to write any algorithm a first-year student is likely to write.  I can't think of another language where that is even theoretically possible.
>
> really? I suspect bit banging is a bit difficult in core Lisp. Knuth had a reason for using pseudo-assembler.
>
> What would be difficult in Pascal or Python?
>
>> I'm sort of old-fashioned I suppose, but what does a first-year CS student need with fancy GUIs?
>
> engage their interest. real world programming actually has to deal with such things. When I was talking about beginner languages I wasn't necessaily thinking of CS students.
>

yep.

although I don't necessarily entirely like "real world" based arguments 
(which often boil down to "it is a dog-eat-dog world where people need 
mountains of money to survive" or "it is a waste of time for programmers 
to actually do anything or actually write code" or whatever), things 
don't really exist in a vacuum either, and "what is the case?" and "how 
can this be useful?" are fairly important.

so, yes, people may need to think about things like:
how easily can I do typical file IO task?
how easily can I access sockets?
how easily can I throw together a basic GUI?
...

kind of hard to pass off a language which does poorly in these areas 
(among others).


>> Honestly, they just confuse the issue.  Lisp is an interpreted language
>
> no. It *may* be an interpreted langauge. The CL standard actually requires a compiler. Stalin Scheme is one of the more aggressive whole program compilers in existence.
>

yep.

>> so an interpreter prompt is really all you need
>
> never quite got the enthusiasm for interpreters. I've programmed in Python but I've never understood why interpreters are super cool. On modern hardware compilers are pretty quick too.
>

well, it depends on how one draws the line.

as I see it, they aren't really exclusive, as one can have an evaluation 
prompt and compile most things to native code easily enough.

for dynamic loading or interactive entry, short of having to include a 
mountain of headers (one of several major killers for my "C as a 
script-language effort"), one can actually compile things fairly quickly 
(and get much better overall performance than with a plain interpreter).


a scripting language with a vaguely C-like syntax and a fairly strong C 
FFI is "close enough" to being interactive entry of C.

likewise, given the headers are compiled to databases and loaded in 
advance, it also avoids the huge delay of having to drag in a bunch of 
stuff from headers in order to compile stuff (the compiler/VM may 
instead simply retrieve the parts it needs).


I tested, and even running my VM from Linux/ARM, running inside QEMU, 
running on Linux x86-64, running inside VMware, running on Windows 7, 
the VM was still fairly quick and responsive (despite an apparently > 
1000x slowdown, invoking GCC within the emulator, to compile pretty much 
anything, took a *long* time...).


granted, I probably one of the few people who cares how quickly "eval" 
runs, for sake of wanting to use it for some tasks in a soft real-time 
3D engine type scenario (it need not just be fast enough for interactive 
use, but also fast enough so that it can be used for things like world 
event triggers and so on, without adversely impacting gameplay).

yes, yes, maybe "eval" isn't really "the right tool for the job", but 
whatever...


>> (okay, a Lisp-aware text editor like emacs would be nice too).
>
> gak.
>

agreed, I am not fond of emacs...


>> My first college CS course was based on Scheme (a LISP variant).
>
> I've learned, used and like Scheme.
>

I liked Scheme, and even in my newer efforts, it isn't entirely dead 
(even if given my language designs, people are prone to make accusations 
of "blub" and whatever...).


>> At the time I thought it was odd, but now I consider it an ideal first-year-CS language.  You don't spend time worrying about syntax, IDEs, etc.  You worry about algorithm design and correctness.  As it should be.
>
> [the new google interface seems to have duplicated the entire post here  :-( ]

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