Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!underdog!shane
From: shane@underdog.crd.ge.com (Randall H. Shane)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: Shoulds arrays start at zero or one?
Message-ID: <4839@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 18 Jan 90 15:58:31 GMT
References: <4832@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <1990Jan18.034728.8696@world.std.com>
Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com
Reply-To: shane@disney.crd.ge.com (Randall H. Shane)
Distribution: na
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center
Lines: 65

In article <1990Jan18.034728.8696@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
] From: shane@underdog.crd.ge.com (Randall H. Shane)
]  >	At least one Pascal compiler I know of (UBC Pascal for the MTS
]  >operating system) had extensions to perform proper initialization, though
]  >I personally found the syntax EXTREMELY clumsy, and almost not worth it.
]  >The lack of a good initialization syntax is a severe disadvantage in Pascal,
]  >I agree.
] (note: Randall's note is very well reasoned, we don't disagree, just
] chit-chat.)

	Thanks!!  

] So is the fact that the *other* answer to every complaint is "there
] exists a compiler with a magic extension to do that".
] No wonder the language never caught on. I remember when we switched
] from one 370 Pascal to another and no one's programs would recompile
] without massive rework due to all the extensions people had relied on.

	That's why I gave up on Pascal...When RPI, an MTS site, installed
the IBM Pascal VS compiler as an eventual replacement for the UBC Pascal
compiler, it screwed up things for quite some time.  Yecch.  (I was a 
student consultant for the ocmputer center at the time, it was reasonably
hellish.)

	The only two places that Pascal still is flourishing is in the 
IBM/Clone PC world (where Turbo is a good compiler, and preferable to many
of the C's I've used on the machine, but its extensions mean that portability
is tossed out the window), and in the academic community, where it will 
probably not die off until the people teaching it do.

	Y'know, there is a place for a good teaching procedural language --
one with a reasonable standard functionality like C with its standard
libraries, but with a simpler syntax, less direct exposure to the assembly 
language level, and less opportunity for students to slice themselves. 
Like Pascal should have been, I guess.

] All Pascal compilers suffer from this because no one can use the
] actual, standardized language.

	Except Wirth, it seems, and the writers of Pascal textbooks. :-)

] At least C is standardized and it's very odd to get a program which
] compiles syntactically under one not to compile under another
] compiler.  And when you do one of them is almost always a rogue
] compiler that should be shot (i.e. added gratuitous extensions that no
] one needed other than some loser in marketing.)

	True.  Portability problems in C programs are almost never caused
by syntax differences, thank Ghod, they're usually caused by reasonable
things like machine differences, and the inability of people to agree
on how big an 'int' is.

]  >  <I talk about a compiler that converted all parameters to references>
] Hmm, if it really did that that would be a bug, no. It means that
] things I *expected* to be copied (and, hence, unchanged by modifying
] them in the called routine) might now be changed on return.

	I thought Pascal disallowed changes to non-var parameters, but 
since I'm working from memory at this point, I could be wrong (and
most probably am, considering the number of Email messages I've received
about this.....).

-- Randall Shane [shane@disney.crd.ge.com]
	These opinions are mine, and not intended to imply that GE
	approves of them.  I'm not even sure if GE knows I have opinions.