shack@cs.arizona.edu (David Shackelford) (05/08/91)
In article <?.bGejk$1@cs.psu.edu> hvozda@mirkwood.endor.cs.psu.edu (Eric S Hvozda) writes: > >Turbo is NOT standard. Since when is a ELSE on a CASE statement standard? >If one knows standard PASCAL, turbo is nothing. BTW, the type STRING(n) >is not standard either. The standard way is PACKED ARRAY [1..x] OF string >where string = PACKED ARRAY [1..n] OF CHAR; What is the reasoning behind >saying that Turbo is the standard? Given it is used widely, but wide usage >does not make a standard. I didn't mean to say Turbo is standard, merely that it should be. Else on a case statement -- case is useless to me without it. I assume that the standard doesn't have anything like C's "default". String in the Turbo syntax is much simpler to use and easier to read. What's a "packed array"? Why go to the bother of defining your own string if the implementation gives you one? Can you concatenate standard pascal "Strings"? How 'bout deleting from the middle of a string, inserting into the middle, and searching for a substring? I honestly don't know, because I gave up and moved to a different language for Unix long ago. I didn't learn Turbo Pascal from a college class, I learned it on my PC at home. Every time I try to write a standard Pascal program on Unix I find something that Turbo does but standard doesn't. I haven't tried much standard Pascal because it's too frustrating -- I do it in C instead. Dave | Turbo user since 1.0
kim@cs.uwa.oz.au (Kim Shearer) (05/10/91)
hvozda@mirkwood.endor.cs.psu.edu (Eric S Hvozda) writes: >In article <1494@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> shack@cs.arizona.edu (David Shackelford) writes: >>I have a decidedly PC-oriented viewpoint in this area. Turbo IS the >>standard Pascal, IMHO. Other Pascals need to change to the Turbo way >>of doing things. (With exception of machine-specifics). When I >>program in "standard" Pascal I get completely lost because you can't >>do ANYTHING in it! >Turbo is NOT standard. Since when is a ELSE on a CASE statement standard? >If one knows standard PASCAL, turbo is nothing. BTW, the type STRING(n) >is not standard either. The standard way is PACKED ARRAY [1..x] OF string >where string = PACKED ARRAY [1..n] OF CHAR; What is the reasoning behind >saying that Turbo is the standard? Given it is used widely, but wide usage >does not make a standard. >-- >Ack! esh101@psuvm.psu.edu ESH101@PSUVM >hvozda@vivaldi.psu.edu hvozda@endor.cs.psu.edu DoD #0217 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 Dept. of Computer Science | PHONE: +61 9 380 3453 University of Western Australia | CRAWLEY, Australia 6009 | +--------------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
jfr@locus.com (Jon Rosen) (05/11/91)
In article <kim.673865699@kowari> kim@cs.uwa.oz.au (Kim Shearer) writes: >hvozda@mirkwood.endor.cs.psu.edu (Eric S Hvozda) writes: >>shack@cs.arizona.edu (David Shackelford) writes: >>>I have a decidedly PC-oriented viewpoint in this area. Turbo IS the >>>standard Pascal, IMHO. Other Pascals need to change to the Turbo way >>>of doing things. (With exception of machine-specifics). When I >>>program in "standard" Pascal I get completely lost because you can't >>>do ANYTHING in it! >>Turbo is NOT standard. Since when is a ELSE on a CASE statement standard? >>If one knows standard PASCAL, turbo is nothing. BTW, the type STRING(n) >>is not standard either. The standard way is PACKED ARRAY [1..x] OF string >>where string = PACKED ARRAY [1..n] OF CHAR; What is the reasoning behind >>saying that Turbo is the standard? Given it is used widely, but wide usage >>does not make a standard. >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. I read this group but usually don't comment. However, this got my blood boiling... Of course there is a standard. So what? Standards are created in order to guide and structure the future in a compatible manner. However, when that does not come to pass, the standard dies an ignominious death. Which is exactly what I predict for the Pascal standard in the long run. True, Turbo Pascal does some things wrong, not only in the eye of the standard but in the eyes of reasonable observers. However, it does a lot of things right. It is pointed out that there is no ELSE on a CASE statement in the standard. Right... But why is that? Is that good? Of course not, it is clearly a blunder in the standard. The lack of support for strings in Pascal is clearly a blunder. ANSI did not have to design a usable, sellable language, they never do. All they had to do was satisfy the myriad groups who were on the standards committee. Borland, while not making a perfect product, went out of their way to incorporate GOOD feature additions to their language. What's more, the proof is in the putting. People USE Turbo Pascal, far more than they use any other of several dozen "standard" Pascals. It is fast. It is reasonably complete. It is useful for building good programs. It has some ommissions, no doubt, but it has so much more, that it exceeds. And more importantly, the marketplace has voted with its dollars. You may say Turbo is not the standard, but, like it or not, it most certainly is. By the way, objects are not in the Pascal standard either, but I doubt anyone who has switched to TP5.5 or TP6 or TPW would want to go back to the old way of programming. PS.. The American car companies took this view a long time ago. They made fins on cars as "standards"... They made gas guzzlers as "standards". And the Japanese tossed out the standards and the American car companies are going broke today. Sorry folks, but if you hide behind a fantasy (like the Pascal "standard") you get what you deserve. PPS.. Since when is anything wrong with "fast and dirty"? Most great programs were written that way. More importantly, I challenge that comment, particularly in light of TP5.5/6/W with Objects. Turbo Pascal is a future looking language, whereas Pascal is a moribund language going nowhere. Even Wirth admits that (hence his support for Modula). By the way, Wirth is appearing with Kahn in a video that Borland is now advertising in their new magazine. I wonder what he thinks of Turbo Pascal? Jon Rosen