santosh wrote:
> CBFalconer wrote:
> > Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > > Richard Heathfield <rjh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> > >
> > ... snip ...
> > >>
> > >> Pascal is a superb teaching language. That it is not widely used
> > >> in industry does not change this fact.
> > >
> > > Since so many regulars are posting OT about Pascal these days, I
> > > beg leave to join in...
> > >
> > > I have used Pascal to teach programming and it is not up to the
> > > task. Lots of little details that could have been finessed in a
> > > teaching language were not (the IO system comes to mind) but the
> > > two biggest problems are:
> >
> > That's because you don't understand it. The file system is very
> > flexible, and can handle almost anything if you write a suitable
> > driver (in something other than Pascal).
>
> Does Pascal require a file system or does it use the host system's?
>
> <snip>
> > Of course if you use crippled non-Pascal systems, such as Turbo,
> > you never get to see or use these abilities.
> <snip>
> > The other major criticism has been the lack of separate compilation
> > in ISO7185. ISO10206 (Extended Pascal) handles this more than
> > adequately and is downward compatible. ISO10206 has been available
> > since 1986, 1984 for drafts.
>
> Is there a fully conforming Pascal compiler for the ISO10206 standard?
Many of these issues are why the US DOD developed the Ada programming
language. Ada is often considered a superset of Pascal. But I think Ada
and Pascal evolved together from 1983 to now. Now, I'm glad there are
people still insisting on conformity to older pascal standards. And I'm
glad there are still excellent pascal choices.
Learning never stops. It takes a long time to appreciate modern, high
level, compiled computer languages.
|
