Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!dillon
From: dillon@ucbvax.ARPA (The Sherif "Matt D.")
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Language transitions
Message-ID: <4475@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 30-Jan-85 15:50:59 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.4475
Posted: Wed Jan 30 15:50:59 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Jan-85 02:29:33 EST
References: <252@gumby.UUCP> <535@ukma.UUCP> <258@gumby.UUCP>
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 29


	The problem I see between Pascal and C is not that Pascal is
so much worse than C (It is), But that many of us are forced to use
languages we don't like just because So and So over that'a'way used Fortran
all his life.  I don't mind Pascal as long as I don't have to program in
it.

	One reason new (and better) languages are not catching on as quickly
is due to the latter cause.  I take as fact that better languages are 
comming out these days and days to come, and as soon as I can get my hands
on them, I'll check them out.  But people have different preferences, so 
one language may suit them better than another.  For instance, I cannot
stand the Apple MAC, because it does not allow me enough freedom with
the computer.  Incidently, this is why I don't like Pascal.

	One argument against C that I have heard A LOT is that it isn't
structured or that it's hard to program readable code in C.  This is a
bunch of B*LL.  The fact is that who-ever said that either does not
or has not programmed in C, or saw a bunch of Joe-Code by some-one-else
who wasn't a very good programmer.

	The general objection to Pascal by C programmers is that it is
not powerfull enough, or fast enough.  Alternatively, Pascal programmers
see C as such a change, that it's unreadable to them.

	My opinion on Pascal (And this may inspire a mail war), is that
it is a subset of C, period.