rbj@icst-cmr (Root Boy Jim) (07/08/86)
> Quick Jab: > If Pascal is so good why did its author (N. Wirth) write > two other languages (Modula & Modula II) before deciding he had one > which could be used for system implementation? (Lilith (sp?)) > > Bill Bogstad > bogstad@hopkins-eecs-bravo.arpa Never any question about this one. Wirth designed Pascal as a teaching Wrong! Even Wirth denied that. language, not a system implementation language, and as a language that could be easily compiled by a 1-pass compiler on small computers. It was designed specifically to be used by novices, thus the very strong type-checking, bounds checking, etc., and the very limited power of the language. Unfortunately it teaches them bad habits as well. I was freaked royally when my brother told me years ago that there were no provisions for separate compilation. Everything in one source file, and they make people write large scale projects in it? Pure insanity. The I/O is inscrutable to a wizard, much less a novice. Arrays of different sizes are incompatible, which discourages general purpose routines. No `otherwise' or `default' clause on switches makes them almost useless. And the syntax is incredibly verbose and ugly. Modula 2 seems like and attempt to create a spin-off of the Pascal methodology that can actually be used for system implementation and the like. Probably just as reasonable as all the incompatibly-expanded Pascals around today. Modula 2 was written to cover Pascal's mistakes. Perhaps Pascal was written to cover Lilith's mistakes as well. As for Lilith, I once saw a film about a nutcase woman of the same name. Filmed in part at Chestnut Lodge, Rockville, Md. All in all, the author's name sums up his contribution to computer science. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh A quote usually goes here, but its currently being rennovated. These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ (Root Boy) Jim Cottrell <rbj@icst-cmr.arpa> You should all JUMP UP AND DOWN for TWO HOURS while I decide on a NEW CAREER!!
ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (07/09/86)
In article <2007@brl-smoke.ARPA>, rbj@icst-cmr (Root Boy Jim) writes: > > Unfortunately it teaches them bad habits as well. I was freaked royally > when my brother told me years ago that there were no provisions for > separate compilation. Everything in one source file, and they make > people write large scale projects in it? Pure insanity. I believe Wirth had said that seperate compilation was a tweak, and that people should concentrate on faster compilers. I guess he changed his mind. > The I/O is inscrutable to a wizard, much less a novice. From my experiences with Pascal I/O, I've found it easier to use 360 assembler and a real library linker/loader than to use Pascal I/O. I've even found it easier (although non portable), to call Fortran reads and writes instead of Pascal's. > > Modula 2 was written to cover Pascal's mistakes. Perhaps Pascal was > written to cover Lilith's mistakes as well. And Ada was written to fix Modula 2's mistakes. -- Kenneth Ng: Post office: NJIT - CCCC, Newark New Jersey 07102 uucp(unreliable) ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!njitcccc!ken soon uucp:ken@rigel.cccc.njit.edu bitnet(prefered) ken@njitcccc.bitnet soon bitnet: ken@orion.cccc.njit.edu (Yes, we are slowly moving to RFC 920, kicking and screaming) Vulcan jealousy: "I fail to see the logic in prefering Stonn over me" Romulan: "Permit me the glory of the kill"
rcd@nbires.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (07/09/86)
OK, are we quite done with stupid, irrelevant insults toward Pascal and
Wirth...or does anyone else need to prove that he's such a C weenie that he
can see neither faults in C nor merits in Pascal? If you're even a halfway
decent programmer, you can do good work in either C or Pascal without
getting hung up on the little issues that folks are flaming about in this
series of postings...
...and if you're at all interested in programming languages, you ought to
know (or be able to find) reasonably accurate information about the
evolution of Pascal, Modula, and Modula 2...
Now, do we have to keep on criticizing Wirth (a language designer) for
continuing to design languages? Or does somebody have something substan-
tive to say about C, which WAS the subject of this newsgroup?
--
Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086
...At last it's the real thing...or close enough to pretend.henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/10/86)
> > ... Wirth designed Pascal as a teaching... > Wrong! Even Wirth denied that. Curious, he said quite explicitly in his early Pascal papers that it was designed primarily as a teaching language. > ...no provisions for > separate compilation. Everything in one source file, and they make > people write large scale projects in it? Pure insanity. Wirth definitely had his head screwed on wrong when he did that. The idea behind it was that a fast compiler could recompile stuff more quickly than a linkage editor could link it in, so why bother with the extra type-checking hassles? The compilers he was thinking of were the early Pascal compilers, which were simple and fast; the linkage editor he was thinking of was the OS/360 one, a notorious pig. In more recent times he has come to his senses. Many of Root-Boy's other complaints about Pascal can be covered with a single observation: Pascal is over 15 years old. It's not surprising that it has a lot of problems by modern standards. > (Root Boy) Jim Cottrell <rbj@icst-cmr.arpa> > You should all JUMP UP AND DOWN for TWO HOURS while I decide on a NEW CAREER!! Jim, if you're really gonna pick a new career, something that will take you away from your keyboard forever, and jumping up and down for two hours will help, a lot of people will do it! -- Usenet(n): AT&T scheme to earn revenue from otherwise-unused Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology late-night phone capacity. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
gwyn@BRL.ARPA (07/11/86)
I have to agree with the criticisms being made against the recent content of the INFO-C/net.lang.c mailing list/newsgroup. I think some of this is due to the recent rapid spread of the group to include people who learned C from folks in the Micro world. Much of the rest of the junk I attribute to people thinking that it is useful to discuss how to CHANGE the language. This is completely misguided; the natural follow-on to C is C++, which has its own newsgroup net.lang.c++, and any alterations that will actually occur to C will be as the result of the ANSI X3J11 standardization effort, which is getting close to release of a proposed standard for public review and comment. There is a moderated newsgroup mod.std.c for discussions pertinent to the X3J11 effort; however, be warned that the committee will turn rather deaf ears on suggestions for radical change, as one of their operative priniciples is that there be as little invalidation of existing code as can be feasibly managed while consolidating the already divergent minor dialects of the language. Fortunately, there has been a single acknowledged de facto standard for C that provided stability for a large segment of the language (similar to the revised Pascal report for that language before it was standardized). A second de facto standard for the C environment occurred because of the close association of C with UNIX. X3J11 is codifying all this, and that will certainly be what C "is" for some time to come. I believe that this particular newsgroup should serve as a forum for technical aspects of the language (as it happens to be). Questions about the use of macros to accomplish a general swap are one recent example of a valid topic; attempts to clarify the meaning of "array[]" are another. HOWever, it serves no useful purpose for people who barely understand C to try to explain tricky technical points to the group; there are several well-qualified "regulars" in this group who can do a better job. (Even they make mistakes, but when they do, the ensuing discussion is generally enlightening rather than confusing.) I don't know of any way to force this newsgroup to re-acquire some of its lost value; I don't think moderating it would be a very good solution. The only hope I have for it is for there to be a widespread agreement amongst the group members on the legitimate purposes of the group (which I just discussed), and a serious attempt by everyone to cooperate with keeping the discussions germane. It would be a real pity if the serious C users had to invent some other mechanism of communicating, when this one should be able to serve well.
franka@mntgfx.UUCP (07/12/86)
In article <311@argus.UUCP> ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) writes: >In article <2007@brl-smoke.ARPA>, rbj@icst-cmr (Root Boy Jim) writes: >> >> Modula 2 was written to cover Pascal's mistakes. Perhaps Pascal was >> written to cover Lilith's mistakes as well. >And Ada was written to fix Modula 2's mistakes. > And, unfortunately, none of the above has gotten it right yet... Frank Adrian
rbj%icst-cmr@smoke.UUCP (07/15/86)
> > ... Wirth designed Pascal as a teaching... > Wrong! Even Wirth denied that. Curious, he said quite explicitly in his early Pascal papers that it was designed primarily as a teaching language. Well, I have read that he said it wasn't. Sometime recently he received a Turing award or something. > ...no provisions for > separate compilation. Everything in one source file, and they make > people write large scale projects in it? Pure insanity. Wirth definitely had his head screwed on wrong when he did that. The idea behind it was that a fast compiler could recompile stuff more quickly than a linkage editor could link it in, so why bother with the extra type-checking hassles? The compilers he was thinking of were the early Pascal compilers, which were simple and fast; the linkage editor he was thinking of was the OS/360 one, a notorious pig. In more recent times he has come to his senses. Okay, a bit of history helps clear this up. Given these conditions, his decision doesn't seem so bad. However, he could have kept the implementation separate from the language. There are load and go fortran compilers as well, but they don't limit everybody else. Many of Root-Boy's other complaints about Pascal can be covered with a single observation: Pascal is over 15 years old. It's not surprising that it has a lot of problems by modern standards. And C is as old. C has evolved; it wasn't perfect as first issued. Fortunately, C is more flexible. What I am complaining about is Pascal's *orientation*, or design philosophy. It even bothered BWK enough to write a techical report (#100?) `Why PASCAL is not my favorite language'. Too bad it's not an appendix of K&R. > (Root Boy) Jim Cottrell <rbj@icst-cmr.arpa> > You should all JUMP UP AND DOWN for TWO HOURS while > I decide on a NEW CAREER!! Jim, if you're really gonna pick a new career, something that will take you away from your keyboard forever, and jumping up and down for two hours will help, a lot of people will do it! Excellent! I'm glad somebody picked up on Zippy's quotes! I like your quotes too. Usenet(n): AT&T scheme to earn revenue from otherwise-unused Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology late-night phone capacity. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry (Root Boy) Jim Cottrell <rbj@icst-cmr.arpa> My life is a patio of fun!