Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!saxony!dgil
From: dgil@pa.reuter.COM (Dave Gillett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: Turbo Pascal vs. C
Message-ID: <410@saxony.pa.reuter.COM>
Date: 23 Sep 90 21:07:00 GMT
References: <F*=-d162@cs.psu.edu> <1990Sep20.164153.28641@portia.Stanford.EDU> <5953@plains.NoDak.edu>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Reuter:file Inc  (A Reuter Company) Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 58

In <5953@plains.NoDak.edu> bakke@plains.NoDak.edu (Jeffrey P. Bakke) writes:
>If your writing a Database program or Inventory
>Control, or something along those lines, Pascal is definitely easier to
>learn and to debug.  On the other hand if you plan to be writing Hardware
>interfaced programs (Hard Drive, High Speed Video, Serial Port Control, etc)
>C would probably be a better choice.  Although it is harder to learn and
>even harder still to become proficient at (many ways to do 1 thing) C is
>also infinitely more flexible and powerful when it comes to low-level 
>applications.

Pure myth.  (a) C and Turbo Pascal are of roughly equal power and flexibility,
and anything you can write in C could be written in Turbo Pascal.  (b) Even if
their differences in this regard were significant, they'd still be far from
"infinite".


>  If you need your programs to execute faster, C would also
>be the better choice.  Good C code, with a good optimizing compiler is
>second only to assembly in execution speed (and infinitely easier to code).

Hmmm...  Infinite again.  Most of the things an experienced programmer does in
"good C code" to suggest optimizations to the compiler can also be done in 
Turbo Pascal.  It's true that the best C compilers do more optimization than
the best Pascal compilers, but Forth gives assembly a good run for its money
and so I doubt see is second.


>C is also more flexible as far as being able to allocate large quantities
>of memory and work with multiple memory models.  Pascal is limited to
>64K maximum data allocations (unless you spend time with messy alternates)
>and it is hard to interface Pascal with other languages.  C is easier
>to interface with other Object code.

Well, it's true that TP objects can only be up to 64K, (that's a TP
limitation and not inherent in Pascal as such); it effectively only runs in
"large" model.  This is sufficient for the vast majority of programming tasks;
as with the comment above about "harder to master", multiple memory models
can be as much curse as blessing.  ("messy alternates" indeed)

It's true that Turbo Pascal doesn't have built-in support for function 
pointers.  It also requires you to go to a bit of effort to convince the
compiler that your code will use the interface expected by the code you're
linking too.  In C it's easier to link it, and *much* easier to get it
wrong.


>Anyway, you need to look at what your programming requirements are.  You 
>can't simply look at two languages and ask a generalized question about
>which is better.  Supposedly, you should be able to write any necessary
>code or function in any language you choose but some languages may make it
>much harder to implement your requirements.  

>Ok, in my opinion C is more flexible and powerful than Pascal, but Pascal
>is much more user-friendly and easier to use....

Now that I can agree with.  C wouldn't be my first choice for most things,
but it's an acceptible second choice for almost everything.
                                           Dave