Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!seismo!brl-adm!caip!ut-sally!utah-cs!b-davis
From: b-davis@utah-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c,net.lang.pascal
Subject: Re: Pascal vs C, again (was: Pascals Origins)
Message-ID: <3859@utah-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Jul-86 20:28:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: utah-cs.3859
Posted: Mon Jul 21 20:28:48 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 22-Jul-86 09:08:02 EDT
References: <2222@brl-smoke.ARPA> <7014@boring.mcvax.UUCP> <3130@utcsri.UUCP> <8069@duke.duke.UUCP>
Reply-To: b-davis@utah-cs.UUCP (Brad Davis)
Organization: University of Utah VCIS Group
Lines: 32
Xref: utcs net.lang.c:9836 net.lang.pascal:582

>In article <3130@utcsri.UUCP> greg@utcsri.UUCP (Gregory Smith) writes:
>	i :=1 ;
>	while i<1000 and x[i] <> 0 do
>		i := i+1;
>	if x[i] = 0 then writeln('zero at location', i )
>	else writeln('not found');

I personally like:

	for i := 1 to 1000 do
		if x[i] = 0 then goto DONE;
	i := 1001;
DONE:
	if i <= 1000 then writeln('zero at location', i )
	else writeln('not found');

If you don't like the 'goto' then flame someplace else.  I think that
goto's can be used in a structured manner.  The statement 'i := 1001;'
is needed since the value of 'i' is undefined after the 'for' statement.
What's nice is that a good compiler can look at the 'for' loop and 
determine that bounds checking is not needed on the 'if' statement.
The 'for' loop can also be done as a single machine instruction (on
none RISC machines).  A good optimizing compiler might even be able
to generate better code than a good optimizing C compiler.

I like Pascal for some reasons and I like C for other reasons.  The
reasons usually conflict.  I don't claim to be consistant.

-- 
Brad Davis	{ihnp4, decvax, seismo}!utah-cs!b-davis	
		b-davis@utah-cs.ARPA
One drunk driver can ruin your whole day.