reeder@reed.UUCP (Doug Reeder) (10/06/89)
I would really appreciate it if people posting Turbo-specific questions would include either 'Turbo' or 'TP' in the subject line of their postings, so rn (the news reading progrom I use) can screen them out. -- Doug Reeder USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!reeder Box 722 Reed College BITNET: reeder@reed.BITNET Portland, OR 97202 from ARPA: tektronix!reed!reeder@berkeley.EDU (503) 777-1551 "A blaster can point two ways." -Salvor Hardin
amull@Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt) (10/07/89)
In article <13380@reed.UUCP>, reeder@reed.UUCP (Doug Reeder) writes: > > I would really appreciate it if people posting Turbo-specific questions > would include either 'Turbo' or 'TP' in the subject line of their postings, > so rn (the news reading progrom I use) can screen them out. You misspelled "pogrom". 8^) Andrew Mullhaupt Morgan Stanley and Co., Inc.
chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) (10/09/89)
In article <13380@reed.UUCP> reeder@reed.UUCP (Doug Reeder) writes: > >I would really appreciate it if people posting Turbo-specific questions >would include either 'Turbo' or 'TP' in the subject line of their postings, >so rn (the news reading progrom I use) can screen them out. Better, why not have a separate group comp.lang.pascal.turbo (there certainly seems to be enough material to fill such a group). What do people think, and who will volunteer to conduct the vote (I might even do it myself if my finger on the n key gets worn out anymore, but a real Turbo user could probably write a more convincing case)?
chad@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (D. Chadwick Gibbons) (10/10/89)
In article <111@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes: |Better, why not have a separate group comp.lang.pascal.turbo (there certainly |seems to be enough material to fill such a group). comp.lang.pascal doesn't have enough traffic to warrent a subgroup. such a creation would be a waste.
amull@Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt) (10/10/89)
In article <408@uwm.edu>, chad@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (D. Chadwick Gibbons) writes: > comp.lang.pascal doesn't have enough traffic to warrent a subgroup. > such a creation would be a waste. I tend to agree. Also; I think there is another reason why Turbo Pascal should be kept in comp.lang.pascal. It is important in the Pascal world to remember that our hallowed (and I am a true believer in the standardization example of Pascal) standards do not cover important topics real programming problems bring up. Many of the Turbo users' questions are the kind of machine and implementation specific grit we try not to think about from the point of view of standards. It is important for the Pascal community to see what the issues are, so that if possible, we can come up with well-structured responses to these questions which can extend the spirit of the Pascal standard to the dark corners of I/O, communications and graphics programming. The unhappy possibility is that implementors will merely borrow some C library functions and slap pseudo-Pascal wrappers on top of it. Not thinking about these issues will not help either; just take Sun's UNIX pc for example. Keeping a unified news group is one way to help keep Pascal unified. Once a language falls apart, (C, Lisp and APL are examples of the danger here) it's really awful to get people back together. If the weight of the Turbo traffic is getting you down, use the "K" feature of rn, or the like, but first ask yourself is there that much traffic? We certainly don't have to put up with the comp.lang.c or ibm.pc level of bandwidth! Let's keep Pascal beautiful! Andrew Mullhaupt
mitch@arcturus.UUCP (Mitchell S. Gorman) (10/11/89)
chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes: >In article <13380@reed.UUCP> reeder@reed.UUCP (Doug Reeder) writes: >> >>I would really appreciate it if people posting Turbo-specific questions >>would include either 'Turbo' or 'TP' in the subject line of their postings, >>so rn (the news reading progrom I use) can screen them out. >Better, why not have a separate group comp.lang.pascal.turbo (there certainly >seems to be enough material to fill such a group). What do people think, and >who will volunteer to conduct the vote (I might even do it myself if my finger >on the n key gets worn out anymore, but a real Turbo user could probably >write a more convincing case)? (*S*I*G*H*) We've been through this before, gang. It's not a good idea, for a very simple reason. There are people who use Turbo who can benefit from non-Turbo articles, and non-Turbo users who can benefit from Turbo articles. The solution to your exasperation is what Doug has suggested: kill files. That's why they're there. I read all the articles in this group, and it really doesn't matter to me whether or not they're Turbo-specific (despite the fact that I only use Turbo). If a thread starts getting too implementation-specific, I just stop reading the thread. Now, why is that such a difficult method of dealing with this situation? Why lock yourselves out of the possibility of encountering something you may well find useful? If there were separate groups, some of you might never get to see something that could answer a similar problem you may be encountering. Doesn't that make it worth it? Mitch @ Rockwell, Anaheim mitch@arcturus.UUCP Disclaimer: I must admit, however, that I don't read anything about VAX Pascal - I want nothing to do with those machines. (...he said, whilst donning flame-proof duds... :^)
chip@hpclisp.HP.COM (Chip Chapin) (10/12/89)
>/ / chad@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (D. Chadwick Gibbons) / 7:35 pm Oct 9, 1989 / >In article <111@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes: >|Better, why not have a separate group comp.lang.pascal.turbo (there certainly >|seems to be enough material to fill such a group). > > comp.lang.pascal doesn't have enough traffic to warrent a subgroup. >such a creation would be a waste. Agreed. Considering the traffic mix in this group, it makes more sense for non-Turbo postings to put "Non-TP" or some such in their titles, then to expect all the Turbo users to flag their postings. Chip "`Turbo' is a stupid name" Chapin
R_Tim_Coslet@cup.portal.com (10/12/89)
In article <13380@reed.UUCP>, reeder@reed.UUCP (Doug Reeder) writes: > > I would really appreciate it if people posting Turbo-specific questions > would include either 'Turbo' or 'TP' in the subject line of their postings, > so rn (the news reading progrom I use) can screen them out. I think this is an excelent idea... But should be applied to everyone. Whatever kind of Pascal you are refering to in the posting should appear in the title... preferably in the first couple of words. One could begin each title with something like UCSD, TP3.1, TP5, VAX, Apollo, etc. as the first word........... this would even make replying to questions easier as it would avoid confusion as to the Pascal Environment you are working in. R. Tim Coslet Usenet: R_Tim_Coslet@cup.portal.com BIX: r.tim_coslet
CSJR@acad.cut.oz (Steve Rollinson) (10/12/89)
In article <408@uwm.edu>, chad@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (D. Chadwick Gibbons) writes: > In article <111@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes: > |Better, why not have a separate group comp.lang.pascal.turbo (there certainly > |seems to be enough material to fill such a group). > > comp.lang.pascal doesn't have enough traffic to warrent a subgroup. > such a creation would be a waste. Whaaaaaaaaat ????????!??!?!?!?!? Not enough traffic ?!? From the way it looks from here maybe there should be comp.lang.pascal.NOT_turbo for the minority. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Rollinson Systems Support - Curtin University of Technology Computing Centre Western Australia CSJR@acad.cut.oz PSI%AUSTPAC.0505294523000::CSJR -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schwartz@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) (10/12/89)
In article <438@e-street.Morgan.COM> Andrew P. Mullhaupt writes:
Keeping a unified news group is one way to help keep Pascal unified. Once a
language falls apart, (C, Lisp and APL are examples of the danger here) it's
really awful to get people back together.
I think that traffic here is small enought that putting "turbo" in
one's kill file is the best solution to the tp pollution problem, but
I don't think I agree with that statement...
C and Lisp are much more unified than Pascal is, inasmuch as they each
have an official standard that is widely implemented and supported by
the user community. And rather than falling apart, these languages
enjoy (ANSI C) or have enjoyed (Common Lisp) a convergence to the
approved standard.
Pascal, on the other hand, is cursed with a twisty maze of ill
conceived "de facto standards" proclaimed by compiler vendors, all
different.
My question is this: rather than rake an old but (previously) well
defined language like Pascal over the coals again and again, adding
new "features" by the score, why not just move on to new things? Use
Pascal when you want Pascal, and use something else when you want
something else. Wirth did that with Modula and Oberon; why don't we?
--
Scott Schwartz <schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu>
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming....tjones%ug.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Thouis Jones) (10/13/89)
In article <438@e-street.Morgan.COM> amull@Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt) writes: >In article <408@uwm.edu>, chad@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (D. Chadwick Gibbons) writes: >> comp.lang.pascal doesn't have enough traffic to warrent a subgroup. >> such a creation would be a waste. > [Long dissertation about how bad it would be to let Pascal split up deleted] I don't see how it is possible to stick to the standards of a language and still serve all the needs that may exist on that computer. It's no longer possible to serve Pc's and Unix machines with the exact same language. There needs to be change between computers. Besides, if we all kept tot he standards, where would new languages come from? I grant that when there was a large change in a computer a new language might spring up to use that change, but most languages didn't start that way. >Let's keep Pascal beautiful! Impossible. :-) flames >& /dev/null ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Email: tjones@ug.utah.edu "Beware of Quantization Errors." -prof man page "My morals are in no way responsive to your arguments. Shut up."
amull@Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt) (10/14/89)
In article <1989Oct12.195937.18967@hellgate.utah.edu>, tjones%ug.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Thouis Jones) writes: > > I don't see how it is possible to stick to the standards of a > language and still serve all the needs that may exist on that > computer. Uh ... which computer? The standards are intended to approach those problems for which a machine and implementation independent solution can be had. The standards are likely to be mute on those subjects, (for example a vertical interrupt detector in an animation package) which are not applicable in a uniform way across different machines. > It's no longer possible to serve Pc's and Unix machines > with the exact same language. Can I see a proof of this assertion or are we just not trying hard enough to keep up with the hardware and operating systems? I know a lot of C programmers who would not really accept your assertion. > > >Let's keep Pascal beautiful! > > Impossible. :-) (* sigh ... chacun a son gout *) > > flames >& /dev/null I have the luxury of not running UNIX at the moment so that's not where the flames will go.... 8^) Later, Andrew Mullhaupt
vicc@unix.cie.rpi.edu (VICC Project (Rose)) (10/16/89)
In article <429@s5.Morgan.COM> amull@Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt) writes: >In article <13380@reed.UUCP>, reeder@reed.UUCP (Doug Reeder) writes: >> >> I would really appreciate it if people posting Turbo-specific questions >> would include either 'Turbo' or 'TP' in the subject line of their postings, >> so rn (the news reading progrom I use) can screen them out. > >You misspelled "pogrom". 8^) I thought he meant a program which was in ROM! :-) -- Frank Filz Center For Integrated Electronics Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute vicc@unix.cie.rpi.edu