Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!purdue!bu-cs!husc6!osf!pmax7!lehotsky From: lehotsky@pmax7.osf.org (Alan Lehotsky) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo Subject: Re: Apollo Pascal Message-ID: <826@osf.OSF.ORG> Date: 11 May 89 14:19:27 GMT References: <8905022002.AA00179@apollo.bucknell.edu> <20253@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <4887@pt.cs.cmu.edu> Sender: news@osf.OSF.ORG Reply-To: lehotsky@pmax7.osf.org (Alan Lehotsky) Organization: Open Software Foundation Lines: 33 After saying a whole bunch of nice things about Apollo Pascal, [like fast code, extensive extensions, etc], Vincent Broman makes the mistake of claiming that: "Don't look for conformance to any standard at all" I'd like to point out that Apollo's Pascal has been ISO Level 0 compliant for (I think) over two years now. "Procedure/function arguments to procedures and functions are not allowed" This was also fixed at least two years ago (even before it became ISO conforming). I suspect that he has a very old release of the compiler, or else he hasn't bothered to RTFM. Finally, the remark about "illiterate" responses to bug reports is (hopefully) inaccurate, or else Mr. Broman caught us on an off day. Most of the UCR responses for Pascal were written by me, or by a co-worker who happened to be a philosophy major. I won't try too hard to convince the world that I am literate, but the philosopher certainly can claim that skill. And now, penultimately, I'll agree with you that Apollo Pascal contained more than its share of poorly integrated language extensions. It was a victim of too many language architects and too little language architecture! [I sound like a parent defending his child, huh? So much for ego-less programming!] Al Lehotsky