Re: pascal equivalent of python "sleep"

On 2008-05-08, thomas.mertes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 <thomas.mertes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > standard Pascal. The area covered by the standard C library
>> > is IMHO also a little bit bigger.
>>
>> Maybe. I never counted both, but the difference is not even close as a
basis
>> for C's "****tability".
>
> That is one opinion, but not my opinion.
> I suggest your talk about that with people who know
> both languages and their libraries inside out.

Well, I base myself on K & R (appendix C of the 2nd edition to be exact).
I
count 100 calls tops (and that includes some limit constants). Aside from
basic file I/O (which is the roughly the same subset in Pascal) I count
gettime, system() and signal as the other OS wrapping functions (of which
signal is not implemented on non Unices, or only for runtime internal
exceptions)

I couldn't do the same quickly for pascal, but my guestimate would be
40-50
calls (built-ins inclusive). So it boils all down to gettime, system and
signal?

>> In some form or the other, if you interface or emulate them yes.
However it
>> doesn't matter if you do that from C or Pascal.
>
> As I explaind already, my critical points about Pascal's
> ****tability start with the language itself (else/otherwise
> clause for case statements,

That is a dialect question, not ****tability. And it is not that strange in
C
land either (mixing prototypes with original K&R C, dialects that consider
void * compatible with any pointer, vs the ones that still use char * for
that)

> file buffer variables

What exactly?

> OTOH in C there are not such
> issues (as long as you refrain from using Microsofts (and others)
> extensions).

Well, see above. C hasn't been constant in the history also. The MS
extensions are often just that, pre-standard implementations that deviate
from the final standard.

> IMHO avoiding extensions of the language in C is easy while
> in Pascal it is sometimes unavoidable.

You point to few original sources or own research for that conclusion. You
might be right, but I don't have the information to reach the same
conclusion.