Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!bnlux0!drs From: drs@bnlux0.bnl.gov (David R. Stampf) Newsgroups: comp.sys.encore Subject: Re: TeX Message-ID: <1104@bnlux0.bnl.gov> Date: 18 Apr 89 19:28:54 GMT References: <1101@bnlux0.bnl.gov> <2561@buengc.BU.EDU> <1102@bnlux0.bnl.gov> <2573@buengc.BU.EDU> Reply-To: drs@bnlux0.UUCP (David R. Stampf) Organization: Brookhaven National Lab., Upton, N.Y. Lines: 111 There is a lot more wind than light here - I'll edit a bit. >Yes, but the VAX BSD Pascal is the Berkeley pc compiler which allows the >illegal use of file parameters mentioned above. This handling of these >parameters is contrary to the standard as well as long standing >restrictions on the assignment to file variables. > >Quoting "Pascal User Manual and Report" 3rd edition by Jensen and Wirth >revised by Mickel and Miner, p.110. > >"Note that file parameters or structured variables with files as >components may not be specified as actual variable parameters, as this >would constitute an assignment." So, any Pascal compiler that allows this >is illegal. You can't fault Encore for requiring legal Pascal. > That's wonderful, but Pascal has long suffered from creeping featuritis. There is simply no credible pascal standard. Look at the PC and Mac markets which are arguably the largest pascal markets, and try to talk get/put with these folks. It doesn't really matter on some obsure points, when there are major differences. >> >> Actually, I'm on the side that TeX leaves something to be desired in >>that it assumes that a compiler has an otherwise clause on case statements, >>which is not part of *vanilla* pascal and has been extended in many different >>ways, very few of which are even close to being compatable. > >Yes, but the file problem is even worse. We all have our pet peeves, for the work I've had to do, the lack of a reasonable switch statement, lack of static variables, lack of function i pointers and the lack of a standard way to modularize are the worst parts of Pascal. Otherwise it is one of my favorite languages. As Knuth said, he used Pascal because it is everyone's second favorite language. >Yes, but when you ask for help you should not go about claiming somebody's >product is "terribly deficient" when it's not. Of course the Encore >compiler will not compile that version of TeX because TeX is not written >in Pascal, but rather a restricted dialect of Pascal. > deficient (adj) - lacking in some quality, faculty or characteristic necessary for completeness. The *only* reason we have Pascal other than to support some Programming 101 types of effort is to run TeX. In that context, it is deficient. That isn't necessarily a prejoritive remark. Don't be so touchy. The fact is, that Unix systems are (within the various subspecies of BSD and System V) rather nice platforms for portability. I don't see why Encore cannot provide both Pascal compilers since there are obvious compatability problems. >Secondarily you mention that there are local mods which require a "virgin >source". Here we have a second departure from the use of "standard" >software. I don't think it's reasonable to make non-standard >modifications and then complain about the product failing to adhere to >local custom. > So instead I get people telling me to compile parts of sources on one machine and run them through special pascal to C converters on another. I guess one man's resonable modifications is another man's departure from standards. >I did, I suggested he use the C version which compiles and runs on the >Encore without the slightest problem. We put that version up here without >untoward difficulty. I also suggested he contact me for additional help. > I'm taking you up on the offer. Please send information on the C version of TeX. I assume it passes the trip test etc. >Again, the original poster stated that the product was deficient and >thereby made false statements about the compiler. Such statements can >cause harm to the sellers when they are not warranted. If the compiler >wouldn't compile the if statement or something like that then he would >have a point but here he was wrong and said something that was potentially >libelous. If the poster really wanted help he should have asked for it >and not trashed the product. It's not conducive to good relations to >solicit help by saying something is bad when it works just fine. All that >does is get people who know better upset and cast the poster in a very bad >light. > And you libeled him back by saying "he didn't know what he was talking about". Loosen up a bit and look at what everyone is saying. I think he asked a reasonable question and got back a nasty reply. That's the only reason I followed up at all. I'm sure that the Encore compiler is a fine tool, and I will be sure to inform our TeX users here of that fact. Since they are TeX users, I'm sure their esthetics will be high enough to appreciate that. >I am not associated with Encore in any way except as a very satisfied >customer and one who has made extensive use of the Pascal compiler and >find it to be hands down the best one I have ever used (including the one >I wrote in 1980). I find it hard to believe that it was better than the one you wrote. At least we have that it common - it is probably also better than the one I wrote too. ;-) Anyway, so there is no mistake, I think Encore is an OK company, and I am willing to accept on your recomendation that their compiler is the best darn Pascal compiler in the world which does not compile TeX. < dave (P.S. Back to the original question - can anyone help us get TeX running on an Encore.)