dlbaer@mozart.UUCP (Dennis L. Baer ) (10/12/88)
PROGRAMMERS,try the Structured Programming Language and you will have an
opportunity to switch to a language that is better than PASCAL and C. It
is also an improvement to BASIC but familiar to you if you use BASIC.
Why SWITCH to SPL? Here are the reasons!
SPL has better and longer variable names.
SPL has better PROCEDURES and linkage to assembly language and BASIC.
SPL has better INPUT/OUTPUT facilities both random and sequential I/O.
SPL has better FOR loops with INTEGER and REAL indicies and increments.
SPL has better BLOCK structure.
SPL has better GRAPHICS facilities.
SPL has better STRING variables and functions.
SPL programs are easier to make portable to even non MSDOS machines.
SPL runs on ALL MSDOS and PCDOS machines not just PCDOS machines.
Another BIG reason: MAKE MONEY DISTRIBUTING SPL.
Download file SPL.EXE from 516 935 2027 and call 516 694 5872 during
normal business hours for further details or for questions you have.
SPL.EXE has the entire Structured Programming Language software
package. SPL is by Electronic Digital Computer Systems Company.
SPL is easy to learn, use, and combines the BEST of BASIC and PASCAL.
Sample SPL program.
BEGIN
REAL Bb,Aa,Cc;
REAL Root_1,Root_2;
PROCEDURE Quadratic_roots(Aa,Bb,Cc);
BEGIN
REAL Factor;
Factor:=Bb*Bb-4.*Aa*Cc;
IF Factor<0 THEN
BEGIN
Root_1:=10^(-10); Root_2:=10^(-10);
RETURN;
END
Root_1:=(-Bb+SQR(Factor))/(2.*Aa);
Root_2:=(-Bb-SQR(Factor))/(2.*Aa);
END
REAL Constant_A,Constant_B,Constant_C;
Ask_for_quadratic_constants:
INPUT('Enter A,B,C:' @ Constant_A,Constant_B,Constant_C);
Quadratic_roots(Constant_A,Constant_B,Constant_C);
OUTPUT(); OUTPUT(Root_1,Root_2); OUTPUT();
GO Ask_for_quadratic_constants;
END
Resulting BASIC program that is compiled and run on many systems or translated
to C and then compiled as a C program.
2 OPTION BASE 1
3 DIM AZ( 9 ),A%( 1 ),A$( 1 ),B$( 1 )
503 COMMON AZ(),A%(),A$(),B$()
1001 GOTO 1018
1002 ::
1003 AZ(2)=Z1Z
1004 AZ(1)=Z2Z
1005 AZ(3)=Z3Z
1006 AZ(6)=AZ(1)*AZ(1)-4.*AZ(2)*AZ(3)
1007 IF AZ(6)<0 THEN 1009
1008 GOTO 1013
1009 AZ(4)=10^(-10)
1010 AZ(5)=10^(-10)
1011 RETURN
1012 GOTO 1014
1013 :
1014 :
1015 AZ(4)=(-AZ(1)+SQR(AZ(6)))/(2.*AZ(2))
1016 AZ(5)=(-AZ(1)-SQR(AZ(6)))/(2.*AZ(2))
1017 RETURN
1018 :
1019 :
1020 INPUT "Enter A,B,C:";AZ(7),AZ(8),AZ(9)
1021 Z1Z=AZ(7)
1022 Z2Z=AZ(8)
1023 Z3Z=AZ(9)
1024 GOSUB 1002
1025 PRINT
1026 PRINT AZ(4),AZ(5)
1027 PRINT
1028 GOTO 1019jpd@etive.ed.ac.uk (Paul Dourish) (10/15/88)
In article <339@mozart.UUCP> dlbaer@mozart.UUCP (Dennis L. Baer ) writes: > >PROGRAMMERS,try the Structured Programming Language and you will have an >opportunity to switch to a language that is better than PASCAL and C. >SPL programs are easier to make portable to even non MSDOS machines. Wow, portable to non-MSDOS machines! Really? Yeah, I've always hated the way Pascal and C were entirely MSDOS-oriented. What could Niklaus Wirth and Dennis Ritchie have been thinking of? Sitting there, hacking away in their PCs... I'm sure glad there's SPL around to straighten everything out. Yaay! -- Paul Dourish, JANET: jpd@uk.ac.ed.itspna Concurrent Supercomputer Project, ARPA: jpd%ed.itspna@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk Edinburgh University Computing Service UUCP: ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!itspna!jpd "Ain't they got no barbers where you come from, boy?"
mct@praxis.co.uk (Martyn Thomas) (10/17/88)
CAUTION: downloading executable files is DANGEROUS. This is how viruses spread. (I have no reason not to trust the company promoting SPL - more to the point, I have no reason to TRUST them, either). Martyn Thomas, Praxis plc, 20 Manvers Street, Bath BA1 1PX UK. Tel: +44-225-444700. Email: ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!praxis!mct
jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) (10/17/88)
dlbaer@mozart.UUCP (Dennis L. Baer ) wrote: > PROGRAMMERS,try the Structured Programming Language and you will have an > opportunity to switch to a language that is better than PASCAL and C... > Why SWITCH to SPL? Here are the reasons! ... > SPL has better FOR loops with INTEGER and REAL indicies and increments. :-) You mean I can't use complex numbers to index an iteration? :-) :-) For shame! This language obviously still needs some work... :-) -- ARPA: jack%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk USENET: jack@cs.glasgow.uucp JANET:jack@uk.ac.glasgow.cs useBANGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack Mail: Jack Campin, Computing Science Dept., Glasgow Univ., 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND work 041 339 8855 x 6045; home 041 556 1878
jack@csccat.UUCP (Jack Hudler) (10/20/88)
In article <850@etive.ed.ac.uk> jpd@etive.ed.ac.uk (Paul Dourish) writes: >In article <339@mozart.UUCP> dlbaer@mozart.UUCP (Dennis L. Baer ) writes: >>PROGRAMMERS,try the Structured Programming Language and you will have an >>opportunity to switch to a language that is better than PASCAL and C. >>SPL programs are easier to make portable to even non MSDOS machines. > >Wow, portable to non-MSDOS machines! Really? Yeah, I've always hated the way >Pascal and C were entirely MSDOS-oriented. What could Niklaus Wirth and Dennis >Ritchie have been thinking of? Sitting there, hacking away in their PCs... >Paul Dourish, JANET: jpd@uk.ac.ed.itspna I hope your kidding in that statement but just incase. What are you talking about! C was NOT developed on a PC it was developed for Unix and is NOT MSDOS oriented! I don't know who's C you are programing under, to make the C library function under MSDOS is a real hack just to maintain compatablity with Unix. If your on a Unix machine and most News sites are take a look at the C librarys and include files you'll be surprised. Pascal was not developed on a PC either, it came to real life at UCSD. I was programing USCD pascal before PC's were even a thought in IBM's corporate brain. Jack Hudler -- *OS2, what DOS should have been! Unix, what OS2 should be! *Me thinks I give you enough information already.
pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) (10/21/88)
jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes: ]dlbaer@mozart.UUCP (Dennis L. Baer ) wrote: ]> PROGRAMMERS,try the Structured Programming Language and you will have an ]> opportunity to switch to a language that is better than PASCAL and C... |> Why SWITCH to SPL? Here are the reasons! ... ] ]> SPL has better FOR loops with INTEGER and REAL indicies and increments. ] ]:-) You mean I can't use complex numbers to index an iteration? :-) ]:-) For shame! This language obviously still needs some work... :-) Oh, you think that you have problems. Gee, I can't use structures and datatypes as array inidicies. That's a real problem for me. ;-D on ( Or operators. Geez! ) Pardo Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Programming Summary: Expires: References: <339@mozart.UUCP> <1735@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Sender: Reply-To: pardo@uw-june.UUCP (David Keppel) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: U of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle Keywords: In article <1735@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes: > >dlbaer@mozart.UUCP (Dennis L. Baer ) wrote: > >> PROGRAMMERS,try the Structured Programming Language and you will have an >> opportunity to switch to a language that is better than PASCAL and C... >> Why SWITCH to SPL? Here are the reasons! ... > >> SPL has better FOR loops with INTEGER and REAL indicies and increments. > >:-) You mean I can't use complex numbers to index an iteration? :-) >:-) For shame! This language obviously still needs some work... :-) > >-- >ARPA: jack%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk USENET: jack@cs.glasgow.uucp >JANET:jack@uk.ac.glasgow.cs useBANGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack >Mail: Jack Campin, Computing Science Dept., Glasgow Univ., 17 Lilybank Gardens, > Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND work 041 339 8855 x 6045; home 041 556 1878 -- pardo@cs.washington.edu {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo
eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) (10/22/88)
In article <6154@june.cs.washington.edu> pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) writes: |jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes: |]dlbaer@mozart.UUCP (Dennis L. Baer ) wrote: |]> PROGRAMMERS,try the Structured Programming Language and you will have an |]> opportunity to switch to a language that is better than PASCAL and C... ||> Why SWITCH to SPL? Here are the reasons! ... |] |]> SPL has better FOR loops with INTEGER and REAL indicies and increments. |] |]:-) You mean I can't use complex numbers to index an iteration? :-) |]:-) For shame! This language obviously still needs some work... :-) | |Oh, you think that you have problems. Gee, I can't use structures and |datatypes as array inidicies. That's a real problem for me. That's not nearly as great as my problem. I need a FOR loop that uses Japanese art-films for its indices. Maybe I should switch to SPL?
bnews@nixpbe.UUCP (Martin Boening) (10/24/88)
In article <2599@csccat.UUCP> jack@csccat.UUCP (Jack Hudler) writes: > >I hope your kidding in that statement but just incase. I may be stupid, but I'm pretty certain that it was a joke. So why this followup ??? > >Pascal was not developed on a PC either, it came to real life at UCSD. >I was programing USCD pascal before PC's were even a thought in IBM's >corporate brain. > > Jack Hudler Hmmm. I was up to now labouring under the impression, that PASCAL was developed at the ETH Zuerich by a certain Niklaus Wirth, so there was probably a PASCAL-Compiler living before UCSD ever heard of that language. Correct me, if I'm wrong. Thank's for listening. Marting Boening
hjm@cernvax.UUCP (Hubert Matthews) (10/24/88)
In article <1735@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes: > >dlbaer@mozart.UUCP (Dennis L. Baer ) wrote: > >> PROGRAMMERS,try the Structured Programming Language and you will have an >> opportunity to switch to a language that is better than PASCAL and C... >> Why SWITCH to SPL? Here are the reasons! ... > >> SPL has better FOR loops with INTEGER and REAL indicies and increments. > >:-) You mean I can't use complex numbers to index an iteration? :-) >:-) For shame! This language obviously still needs some work... :-) REAL DO loop indices have been available in FORTRAN-77 for some time now. They are now being designated deprecated features that might be taken out of the language as they are considered to be a bad thing. I got bitten once by a typo where I put the variable on the wrong declaration line like this: REAL A(100), FOO INTEGER J and then used a DO 10 FOO = 1, 10 loop which worked, except passing a REAL to a subroutine that expects an INTEGER is a real no-no. You can even use such dubious constructs as A(1.3) if you really want to make your friends gag. :-} Whatever SPL is, I don't think anyone in their right mind would use such nasties as that. I cannot see any purpose for it and it's also non-portable. Consider a loop like DO 10 A = 1.0, 1.0E6, 0.1. How many times will it loop? What about rounding errors? What will be the value of A after half of the iterations? Uuugh. If that's the sort of tricks that SPL plays, then I wouldn't recommend it to anyone (not even a speed-freak C programmer :-) :-) ). -- Hubert Matthews
jbone@ut-emx.UUCP (Jeff G. Bone) (10/27/88)
In article <2599@csccat.UUCP>, jack@csccat.UUCP (Jack Hudler) writes: > In article <850@etive.ed.ac.uk> jpd@etive.ed.ac.uk (Paul Dourish) writes: > >In article <339@mozart.UUCP> dlbaer@mozart.UUCP (Dennis L. Baer ) writes: > >>PROGRAMMERS,try the Structured Programming Language and you will... > > > >Wow, portable to non-MSDOS machines! Really? Yeah, I've always hated the way > >Pascal and C were entirely MSDOS-oriented. What could Niklaus Wirth and... > > I hope your kidding in that statement but just incase. Geez, the article dripped of sarcasm, what do you mean `I hope your <sic> kid- ing...'? Also, somebody ought to suggest to the SPL guy that he start posting his ads in rec.humor where they might be appreciated... -jgb (jbone@emx.utexas.edu) ---------- "Everyone's head is a cheap movie show."