chip@hpclisp.HP.COM (Chip Chapin) (07/04/89)
I'd like to ask if any of you out there have any plans to use the new
Extended Pascal Standard, now nearing completion by an IEEE/ANSI
committee. You know who you are. But I would really like to know if
anybody cares about this new standard. If I thought many people wanted it,
we (HP) might actually implement it, but otherwise...
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chip Chapin -- HP Computer Language Lab
uucp: ... {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax} !hplabs!hpda!chip
or ... chip%hpda@hplabs.hp.com
HPDesk: chip (hpda) /HPUNIX/UX
USMail: 47LZ; 19420 Homestead Ave; Cupertino, CA 95014
Phone: 408/447-5735 HPTelnet: 1-447-5735
-------------------------------------------------------------diamond@diamond.csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond) (07/06/89)
In article <950028@hpclisp.HP.COM> chip@hpclisp.HP.COM (Chip Chapin) writes: >I'd like to ask if any of you out there have any plans to use the new >Extended Pascal Standard, now nearing completion by an IEEE/ANSI >committee. You know who you are. I am not even in the audience for this question, for two reasons. 1, I'm on the committee; 2, I have yet to find an employer with the maturity to be interested in this kind of thing. Anyway, the reason your intended audience will not reply is that they don't even know about it. Vendors are not hyping this product so how will potential customers even know? People do know that the original Pascal standard was so weak and restrictive that it was impractical, and they don't know that a committee could/would design an industrial strength successor. Before reading an early draft of the new standard, I was pretty skeptical too. Then it blew me away. (Then I was allowed to participate in one meeting by accident, when two divisions of my then-employer weren't speaking to each other.) This language sure is worth hyping. -- Norman Diamond, Sony Computer Science Lab (diamond%csl.sony.jp@relay.cs.net) The above opinions are claimed by your machine's init process (pid 1), after being disowned and orphaned. However, if you see this at Waterloo, Stanford, or Anterior, then their administrators must have approved of these opinions.
rogerson@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM (Dale Rogerson) (07/07/89)
In article <10503@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET> diamond@csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond) writes: >In article <950028@hpclisp.HP.COM> chip@hpclisp.HP.COM (Chip Chapin) writes: >>I'd like to ask if any of you out there have any plans to use the new >>Extended Pascal Standard, now nearing completion by an IEEE/ANSI >>committee. You know who you are. >I am not even in the audience for this question, for two reasons. >1, I'm on the committee; >This language sure is worth hyping. Well, lets start hyping it. Anyone have a preview of the Standard that can be published on the net? This sounds like it would make a great article for Computer Language. How does it compare to Modula 2 and to the new Turbo Pascal 5.5? Anyone have any more information? Danke Sehr -----Dale Rogerson-----
diamond@diamond.csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond) (07/10/89)
In article <2570@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM> rogerson@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM (Dale Rogerson) writes: >Well, lets start hyping it. Anyone have a preview of the Standard that can >be published on the net? This sounds like it would make a great article >for Computer Language. How does it compare to Modula 2 and to the new >Turbo Pascal 5.5? Object-oriented features are not included. I started designing such a version but it was rejected very quickly by my object-oriented employer. In my opinion it is better than Modula 2. Type schemata are very valuable. Renaming is possible in module interfaces (export/import clauses). The original Pascal file I/O, plus string pseudo-I/O, plus reading a line into a string target, are all included; this is more friendly than Modula 2. My impression is that a preview *was* posted to the net. It certainly was published in Sigplan Notices. I will e-mail to the author of that article and ask him to post it again to Usenet. -- Norman Diamond, Sony Computer Science Lab (diamond%csl.sony.jp@relay.cs.net) The above opinions are claimed by your machine's init process (pid 1), after being disowned and orphaned. However, if you see this at Waterloo, Stanford, or Anterior, then their administrators must have approved of these opinions.