On 22 Nov 2002 at 02:45, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
[...]
Sorry, but Borland never had a proper Pascal compiler.
A matter of opinion and perspective. If not for Borland Pascal, I would not be a "Pascal" programmer today. I think that Borland's versions of "Pascal" did much to give the language critical mass outside the classroom. Whether it is really "Pascal" or not is a debate that reminds me of old law school debates about whether "International law" is really "law" - everybody had his opinion, and no-one's opinion ever changed.
[...]
For a standards-compilant compiler, the BP dialect is irrelevant.
Except that it is a de facto standard, and it has the highest critical mass of all "Pascal" "standards" - that makes it relevant if one wants to attract many users.
If all popular Pascal compilers supported all 3, then we would be in source code portability nirvana.
Indeed. However, I don't know of too many other compilers that do
True. That is why I describe GPC as "the mother of all Pascal compilers" on my web page.
[...]
So where's the land where the `()' feature is useful? ;-)
Bor-land (pun intended ;))
But seriously, human language have developed over a long time and "just exist", and they're there for all kinds of communcations. Computer languages are designed and for specific purposes, so the analogy doesn't really hold.
It does insofar as it articulates the idea that it is difficult to see the advantage in anything that one has not experienced for oneself. As we say here in Anglia, "the taste of the pudding is in the eating". How can one really explain how wonderful a piece of cake is to someone who has never eaten a cake before?
Besides, it's not about a languages, but rather a language element. If a make up a new "English" word, I wouldn't see any advantage in using it ...
So why did the persons who invented the word "compiler" or "computer" or any other new English word bother to do so? And if they never did it, how would we describe today what I am now typing on, or the software that you and Peter work so hard to maintain?
[...]
That would be ok -- that's roughly what GNU does as well: Have a single backend (if I may equate this with engine), have many libraries (sure, not a single one, since there's not this MS-ish uniformity) which can be called from many languages.
But why on earth do they mix the languages together? That's not necessary for this model to work.
If you want to have a single VCL and RAD tool, written in Pascal, and you don't want to reinvent it again and again for your C++ compiler, you have no option but to allow C++ to compile Pascal. But why would they allow C-ish stuff into Delphi/Pascal? On that one, your guess is as good as mine! It is not necessary at all, so one can only speculate.
Those who like Pascal should use Delphi, and those who swear by C/C++ should use C++ Builder.
Exactly, so C/C++ features are not required in Delphi.
Nope. I don't even think that they are necessarily always helpful. It is weird.
[...]
Yes. A lot of code now supports Kylix and therefore has to be written "portably".
OK, so it's not all Windows only, but portable?
From one OS to the other, yes - if you code to the CLX instead of VCL
for the user interface. The actual Pascal code itself does not need to be platform specific at all. And the CLX is a cross-platform alternative to the VCL. If you use anything that is platform-specific, you get tons of warnings (if you turn warnings on). No-one needs to code in an unportable manner anymore - and sensible programmers are changing their attitudes.
I thought Kylix also only supported the x86 processors, doesn't it?
You are correct. That is not to say that other processors will not be supported if there is "sufficient demand" - read "don't hold your breath".
Best regards, The Chief -------- Prof. Abimbola A. Olowofoyeku (The African Chief) web: http://www.bigfoot.com/~african_chief/