On 9 Mai, 22:08, Marco van de Voort <mar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On 2008-05-09, thomas.mer...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<thomas.mer...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >> Well, I base myself on K & R (appendix C of the 2nd edition to be
exact).
>
> > That is a good C reference. For a ****table Pascal the ISO 7185
> > Pascal (available here:http://www.standardpascal.org/iso7185.html)
> > minus the things that are not available under Borland Pascal/Delphi
> > must be used (this is descibed as answer to "Is it possible to write
> > in a Pascal subset that will be acceptable to both ISO 7185 Pascal
> > and Delphi?" here:http://www.standardpascal.org/pascalfaq.html)
>
> I do not agree that these are the same thing. You are comparing intra
> standard compability of C to inter standard compability (giving Borland
that
> credit for arguments state) on Pascal.
I thought that because of marked share Borland must be
taken into account. It's the view when you come to a
computer with your software and you get told: This is
our Pascal compiler which we use for everything. Can
you use it as well (because it is the only one)?
> >> 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)
>
> > Well not exactly. What about 'remove', 'rename', 'fseek', 'ftell'?
>
> Simply a result of definition at a different time, when the file concept
was
> less used. Same with why both don't sup****t GUI, while that is also
> considered pretty universal today. Or thread su****t, or, or, or.
Aggree. I have more to add: Database sup****t, networking,
compression, xml, html, and much more. There are many areas
that should be sup****ted in libraries for todays languages.
IMHO libraries get more im****tant while core languages get
less im****tant. I try to take this into account, but writing
libraries for all these areas takes time.
> The point is that you can bicker about C having a handful of functions
more
> or less, but it is a far, far cry of the number of calls needed to write
a
> modern app TODAY. And if subset A is 0.1% of the calls, and B 0.2% is
> irrelevant.
At the time when I switched from Pascal to C the percentages
where probably different. For todays percentates I would use
higer values, but essencially you are right.
> And I don't have enough time to start a yes/no discussion about every
one of
> them, so I skip them.
IMHO it is not necessary to go into details. The big picture
is more im****tant.
Greetings Thomas Mertes
Seed7 Homepage: http://seed7.sourceforge.net
Seed7 - The extensible programming language: User defined statements
and operators, abstract data types, templates without special
syntax, OO with interfaces and multiple dispatch, statically typed,
interpreted or compiled, ****table, runs under linux/unix/windows.
|
