Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!psuvax1!psuvax1.cs.psu.edu!schwartz From: schwartz@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) Newsgroups: comp.lang.pascal Subject: Re: No Obfuscations yet. Message-ID: Date: 26 Oct 89 21:41:08 GMT References: <467@e-street.Morgan.COM> Sender: news@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu Organization: Pennsylvania State University, computer science Lines: 24 In-Reply-To: amull@Morgan.COM's message of 25 Oct 89 16:41:57 GMT Andrew Mullhaupt writes: | I think we ought to standardize: | 1. The Unit construction for separate compilation. (I like the ones found in | Turbo or Microsoft Pascal better than those in Sun pascal, for example.) | 2. Function and procedure types, (again as found in most of your PC Pascals). | 3. What about some kind of extensible arrays? Are conformant arrays what we | want or should we go for something different? | 4. Objects and methods as in Object Pascal. Are these Pascal? Are they good? | (I don't know, I'm just asking...) | What do other people think? I think you are drifting away from standardising existing practice into the realm of tacking on new features that catch your fancy. Just like C++, in fact. Let pascal be pascal, and use something else if you want something else. Go read "Object Oriented Software Construction" by Bertrand Meyer to see what a modern language looks like. He designed Eiffel to be clean and complete, and not built out of ad-hoc experimental extensions. Very much in the spirit of pascal as conceived by Wirth. -- Scott Schwartz /bin/hc hits! -more- You cannot escape from the large mimmic!