Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhc!hpcupt3!defaria@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com
From: defaria@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com (Andy DeFaria)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.pascal
Subject: Re: Turbovision for C?
Message-ID: <45670008@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com>
Date: 12 Apr 91 17:41:19 GMT
References: <1991Apr9.205403.8394@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Lines: 32

>/ hpcupt3:comp.lang.pascal / jerry@gumby.Altos.COM (Jerry Gardner) / 10:31 am  Apr 10, 1991 /
>>    - is Turbovision easy to use and efficient?
>
>No, it is very clumsy to use.  If you like LISP, however, you might like
>TV (lots of nested ()'s).

I haven't used TV a lot  but I believe this  claim  of a *need* for lots of
nested ()'s is  wrong.  True the examples show  single function  calls with
lots of ()'s but you don't *have* to do it that way.  For example:

   WriteLn ("The value is = ", foo (bar (anotherfoo (anotherbar))));

can be writen as:

var
   i : integer;
   j : integer;
   k : integer;
   l : integer;

begin
   i := anotherbar;
   j := anotherfoo (i);
   k := bar (j);
   l := foo (k);

   WriteLn ("The value is = ", l);

It's just that Borland used a style of  programming in which function calls
were nested and nested, perhap in an attempt to shorten the number of lines
in the  example.  This doesn't mean  you have  to follow their lead.  Often
the second method is clearer.