Re: pascal equivalent of python "sleep"

On 2008-05-08, thomas.mertes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 <thomas.mertes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> (snip)
>>
>> > With such tings as 'sleep' and many other functionality
>> > your program will depend on your Pascal compiler and
>> > become un****table. This is a sad story.
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> > That I still admire Pascal's concepts can be seen
>> > when you look at Seed7.
>>
>> It is really fatigueing to plug seed7 as a resolution for
inter-compiler
>> compability if there is only one implementation of seed(n)
>
> I did not plug Seed7 as a solution for incompatible
> Pascal dialects

Then for what did you plug it?

> The beginning of the mail contains
> information about the 'sleep' function and the
> paragraph about Pascal and ****tability can also be
> helpful.

Was already posted.

> The last paragraph should just show that although I am a critic of
Pascal
> I do not hate it.

> IMHO the number of implementations does not play a role
> for ****tability

No but it is needed for standard purposes. Since there is no need for a
standards without. (ok, maybe for compat between versions, but that is
already a magnitude less im****tant)

> C has many implementations and the
> ****tability problems which exist in Pascal are simply
> not present.

Then find a sleep() in a strictly conforming C compiler! You won't find
it,
it is POSIX, not C. (not to forget that even then there are several, and
various implementations have varying units for the arguments, from ns to
seconds)

> The problem is that many of the early proponents of Pascal (and if you
> look at this discussion also current proponents) simply do not care
about
> ****tability.

That is IMHO revisionism. The early C code was a dirty as Pascal. Still to
this day, most of the C++ code is intrinsically tied to a certain VS
version.

And even for basic stuff Simply because only the more recent POSIX
standards unified this kind of
behaviour, and the non (Open Source) Unix state is still doubtful at best.

> This has to do with the areas where C and Pascal came from.
> BTW. There is some classic article about Pascal and C from Brian W.
> Kernighan: http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/bwk-on-pascal.html

Which is IMHO incorrect. And even if there ever was truth about it, it
ceased after the first half of the eighties.

Pascal was simply popular at an earlier state, while C was still tied to
Unix.

> You are right that there is currently only one
> implementation of Seed7, but this implementation
> runs on various operating systems (unix, bsd, linux
> windows) on different hardware and with several C
> compilers.

Windows= Windows 32/64/ce ? 

> Additionally this implementation is open
> source (GPL) and therefore can be used to ****t Seed7
> to even more places. I tried to reach that level of
> ****tability with Pascal (a predecessor of the current
> Seed7 interpreter was implemented in Pascal) and
> failed tatally because of the incompatible Pascal
> dialects.

Or , actually more a multitarget compiler. Strike out gcc, and see how far
you get with C.

Luckily there is now FPC (and even GPC would already target all those)