Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!acorn!asmith From: asmith@acorn.co.uk (Andy Smith) Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn Subject: Re: More about BASIC vs. Pascal vs. C (the flame war continues !) Message-ID: <5129@acorn.co.uk> Date: 13 Feb 91 09:37:06 GMT References: Sender: asmith@acorn.co.uk Distribution: comp Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, England Lines: 36 In article mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes: >rkl@and.cs.liv.ac.uk (Richard K Lloyd) writes: >> >>Ahem. It's COBOL and FORTRAN actually...sorry to disappoint you there. > >He said commercial SYSTEMS software. Little commercial systems software is >written in FORTRAN, and almost none in COBOL. FORTRAN is restricted almost >exclusively to scientific software, and COBOL is used almost exclusively >for business data processing. You mean these aren't commercial systems?? >>Really good Pascals (i.e. Borland's Turbo and VAX/VMS Pascal) give C more >>than a run for its money for advanced users. It's the lousier Pascals >>(UCSD et al) that give the language a bad name. > >That's because these "lousy" Pascals are ones which stick to the standard, >whereas things like Borland Turbo "Pascal" are so extended as to be Pascal in >name only. This, of course, means that you have zero portability from Turbo >"Pascal" to anything else. Same with BBC BASIC, its only BASIC by name, but look how many companies have now copied it. You can get BBC BASIC for PC's, Atari, Amiga, etc. There must be something good about BBC BASIC, otherwise why would so many people want to use it. As far as micros go, they all get supplied with a BASIC as standard. I do not know of a machine that get C or Pascal as standard?? >The BASIC interpreter for the Archimedes takes up 30 bytes? I'm impressed. The interpreter is in ROM, therefore it does not take any RAM from the user, you only have to take into account the tokenized form of the program, and its workspace. Andy