nmouawad@watmath.waterloo.edu (Naji Mouawad) (05/10/91)
> I am afraid that there is a standard for Pascal. The world will not > change just because you like Turbo. Other Pascals do not _need_ to > change at all, especially to a Turbo/Borland fast and dirty > approach. > >+--------------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ >Kim Shearer | ACSnet: kim@cs.uwa.oz.au Hello Kim, What you said caught my attention, I have been programing in TP for quiet a while now and although I am not 100 % satisfied with it, it remains my language of choice. As I said in one of my previous postings, I *don't want* TP to become a standard (in the ANSI sense). Standards are heavy and difficult to change. You seems to consider the Borland approach as "Fast and dirty". Could you please explain why you believe that TP is not the right approach ? This is not a rethoretical question ! It seems as if you see something in TP I don't and what best way to learn about a language we like than to get someone's else opinion, especially if he dislike it ! Cheers, --Naji. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- | Naji Mouawad | nmouawad@watmath.waterloo.edu | | University |---------------------------------------------------| | Of Waterloo | "The Stranger in us is our most familiar Self" |
shack@cs.arizona.edu (David Shackelford) (05/11/91)
In article <1991May10.141756.17997@watmath.waterloo.edu> nmouawad@watmath.waterloo.edu (Naji Mouawad) writes: >> Other Pascals do not _need_ to >> change at all, especially to a Turbo/Borland fast and dirty >> approach. >>Kim Shearer | ACSnet: kim@cs.uwa.oz.au > You seems to consider the Borland approach as "Fast and dirty". Could >you please explain why you believe that TP is not the right approach ? >--Naji. Kim, "Fast and dirty"? Is it perhaps because a commercial organization created Turbo, and not an academic one? Just a stab in the dark here, and I don't want to put words in your mouth. Please elaborate on this position, as I've never heard anyone say it quite that way. Also, a general question for Turbo bashers -- what version of TP are you basing your dislike on? If it's earlier than 5.0, I invite you to check out the newest features, including Units with seperate compilation, and Objects (admittedly limited compared to true OOP, but a step in the right direction!). I do have a complaint about Turbo myself -- it's a PC only program, and thus as non-portable as you can get. My earlier statement that I wished other Pascal's were more Turbo-like is that I'd rather not change my own way of programming. Selfish? It's my opinion, you're free to make your own! I viewed the differences between Turbo and Standard Pascal to be enhancements on Turbo's part, but some have pointed out that there are standard programs that TP doesn't have a clue what to do with. Also, it appears that standard Pascal is not the dead language the PC press reports it to be. As for what to use in the contests, the basic questions comes down to "How many know the features of each type of Pascal", and "Which Pascal runs best on the hardware for the contest". I don't know the answer to the first question. On a PC, the answer to the second question is Turbo because it has no competition. If the contest isn't run on PC's, then Turbo is out of the running. SO if Pascal is to be the language, it comes down to what the hardware is. Dave | shack@cs.arizona.edu