Xref: utzoo comp.org.acm:169 comp.lang.pascal:6676
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!mejac!orchard.la.locus.com!prodnet.la.locus.com!jfr
From: jfr@locus.com (Jon Rosen)
Newsgroups: comp.org.acm,comp.lang.pascal
Subject: Re: Turbo the standard? I think not. (was Re: Contests (was Re: Yet another posting...:)))
Message-ID: <24305@dice.la.locus.com>
Date: 10 May 91 23:03:45 GMT
References: <1494@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> <?.bGejk$1@cs.psu.edu> <kim.673865699@kowari>
Followup-To: comp.org.acm
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Lines: 66

In article <kim.673865699@kowari> kim@cs.uwa.oz.au (Kim Shearer) writes:
>hvozda@mirkwood.endor.cs.psu.edu (Eric S Hvozda) writes:
>>shack@cs.arizona.edu (David Shackelford) writes:
>>>I have a decidedly PC-oriented viewpoint in this area.  Turbo IS the
>>>standard Pascal, IMHO.  Other Pascals need to change to the Turbo way
>>>of doing things. (With exception of machine-specifics).  When I
>>>program in "standard" Pascal I get completely lost because you can't
>>>do ANYTHING in it!
>>Turbo is NOT standard.  Since when is a ELSE on a CASE statement standard?
>>If one knows standard PASCAL, turbo is nothing.  BTW, the type STRING(n) 
>>is not standard either.  The standard way is PACKED ARRAY [1..x] OF string
>>where string = PACKED ARRAY [1..n] OF CHAR;  What is the reasoning behind
>>saying that Turbo is the standard?  Given it is used widely, but wide usage
>>does not make a standard.
>I am afraid that there is a standard for Pascal. The world will not
>change just because you like Turbo. Other Pascals do not _need_ to
>change at all, especially to a Turbo/Borland fast and dirty 
>approach.

I read this group but usually don't comment.
 
However, this got my blood boiling...
 
Of course there is a standard.  So what?  Standards are created in order
to guide and structure the future in a compatible manner.  However, when
that does not come to pass, the standard dies an ignominious death.
 
Which is exactly what I predict for the Pascal standard in the long run.
True, Turbo Pascal does some things wrong, not only in the eye of the
standard but in the eyes of reasonable observers.  However, it does a
lot of things right.  It is pointed out that there is no ELSE on a CASE
statement in the standard.  Right... But why is that? Is that good?
Of course not, it is clearly a blunder in the standard.  The lack of
support for strings in Pascal is clearly a blunder.  ANSI did not have
to design a usable, sellable language, they never do.  All they had
to do was satisfy the myriad groups who were on the standards committee.
Borland, while not making a perfect product, went out of their way to
incorporate GOOD feature additions to their language.  What's more,
the proof is in the putting.  People USE Turbo Pascal, far more than
they use any other of several dozen "standard" Pascals.  It is fast.
It is reasonably complete.  It is useful for building good programs.
It has some ommissions, no doubt, but it has so much more, that it
exceeds.  And more importantly, the marketplace has voted with its
dollars.  You may say Turbo is not the standard, but, like it or not,
it most certainly is.  
 
By the way, objects are not in the Pascal standard either, but I doubt
anyone who has switched to TP5.5 or TP6 or TPW would want to go back
to the old way of programming.  
 
PS.. The American car companies took this view a long time ago.  They
made fins on cars as "standards"... They made gas guzzlers as "standards".
And the Japanese tossed out the standards and the American car 
companies are going broke today.  Sorry folks, but if you hide behind
a fantasy (like the Pascal "standard") you get what you deserve.
 
PPS.. Since when is anything wrong with "fast and dirty"?  Most great
programs were written that way.  More importantly, I challenge that
comment, particularly in light of TP5.5/6/W with Objects.  Turbo Pascal
is a future looking language, whereas Pascal is a moribund language
going nowhere.  Even Wirth admits that (hence his support for Modula).
By the way, Wirth is appearing with Kahn in a video that Borland is
now advertising in their new magazine.  I wonder what he thinks of
Turbo Pascal?
 
Jon Rosen