2metre wrote:
> _My_ use of the term 'standard' is only in reference to the ISO
> standards mentioned by CBF. I certainly realise that Delphi does not
> meet Wirth's specification: I was only making that point that the ISO
> standard Pascal(s) are NOT the only variants of the language that
> deserve the name 'Pascal'.
The other would be Wirth 1972. Delphi does not comply with either.
>
>> Does all 1972 standard code run on ISO 7185 ? First of all, there
>> was never any 1972 standard code. We have plenty of examples from
>> those days, and I have yet to see a really standard (as in original
>> 1972 Wirth) program. Most of the ETH programs have CDC 6000 compiler
>> dependencies in them.
>
> ...yet is it correct to refer to those variants of the language as
Pascal.
The differences between Wirth 1972, and ISO 7185 are an inch, the
difference
between those standards and Delphi is a mile. The ansi-iso web site
do***ents
the differences between Wirth 1972 and ISO 7185, as well as the
differences
between Delpi and both of those.
I didn't use the phrase "that deserve the name 'Pascal'" that was another
poster. However, Mr. Falconer is entirely correct in his other points.
Delphi is neither in compliance, nor near compliance with either Wirths
original 1972 Pascal langauge nor ISO 7185 Pascal.
I'm not anti-Borland, although I do think they did the Pascal language a
disservice by creating confusion in the minds of users. I think what Mr.
Falconer was getting at is that Delphi and Pascal (as in Wirth, 1972 and
ISO) are really two different dialects. Many users do confuse the two.
A very common myth is that Borland met the original Pascal language
designed by Wirth, but not the standard, because Borland preceeded the
standard. This myth is false on all accounts. Borland didn't and does not
follow the original language, and the standard was available in draft form
long before Borland got started.
>
> I will have a closer look some time. Does it have Object Pascal
extensions?
No. There is an object oriented spec for IP Pascal that has been in
existance
for IP Pascal since 1997 (actually, there were two. We use a "competing
proposals" method to decide new features for IP Pascal). It awaits the
time to implement it, and I don't have a schedule for it. However, we do
recognize the need for objects in the language. The current spec is
actually
very good, and relied on a survey of all the current and original object
oriented languages. It also has some facinating things like multitasking/
multithreading friendly objects (objects with access syncronization built
in).
>
>> I guess that would be me. I am a Pascal customer, I have been a user of
>
> > ....[snip]....
>
>> are other choices, my web site has a list.
>>
>> If I am annoying being promoter, profiter, and avocate for standard
>> Pascal, perhaps thats what it needed.
>
> Actually I do agree that that is what is needed. But it is a tad
> unfortunate
> that the majority use of this newgroup appears to be an advert for you
> and your services!
I agree. I created this group, and based on its low volume of posts,
I proposed its elimination some while back (check Dejanews). The feedback
I got was that the group was valuable for ISO language issues even
if the traffic was low. so I dropped the discussion.
The original reason for creating ansi-iso was that the general group,
comp.lang.pascal, was completely taken over by Borland, which made
it impossible to discuss non-borland issues on the group. Even if
you were able to pick out the non-borland posts, their existance would
enevitably cause a Borland vs. other Pascals fight.
That situation happily has gone, and comp.lang.pascal.misc is now
also a general purpose forum.
So now we have comp.lang.pascal.misc for general issues concerning all
Pascal dialects, and comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso for standards related
questions. If you look at the C language groups, they are structured
much the same way, so its actually a good arrangement.
>
> Perhaps this is not a good newsgroup for me: I learnt Pascal from
> Turbo/Borland Pascal through to Delphi. I've had exposure to VAX Pascal
> because I've done conversions of NATO wargames from VAX Pascal to
> Borland (someone at a certain UK defence establishment wanted a PC
> version...) To me the language is merely a tool to achieve a certain
> aim. I don't really care which variant I use as long as it can do the
> job. Currently I'm only using FPC, which apart from the size of the
> executables, is absolutely excellent!
Good. Consumer choice is good.
>
> Thanks for the reply - very good humoured considering the small elements
> of criticism in my earlier post!
Sure.
--
Samiam is Scott A. Moore
Personal web site: http:/www.moorecad.com/scott
My electronics engineering consulting site: http://www.moorecad.com
ISO 7185 Standard Pascal web site: http://www.moorecad.com/standardpascal
Classic Basic Games web site: http://www.moorecad.com/classicbasic
The IP Pascal web site, a high performance, highly ****table ISO 7185
Pascal
compiler system: http://www.moorecad.com/ippas
Good does not always win. But good is more patient.
|
