Historical language survey

Sean Kelly sean at f4.ca
Fri Jul 7 12:01:21 PDT 2006


kris wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Don Clugston wrote:
>>
>>> Just Pascal, and I never liked it.
>>> <rant> It seemed to go out of its way to make pointers difficult to 
>>> understand. Plus, the first line of code was the "program" statement, 
>>> which didn't actually do anything, and the last was an almost 
>>> invisible fullstop. This was supposed to be a good teaching language? 
>>> </rant>
>>
>>
>> I liked Pascal until I tried to write useful programs in it (this was 
>> with Pascal implemented according to Wirth's book). It seems I spent 
>> all my development time fighting the compiler. The language semantics 
>> locked everything up so tight there was no way to get things done.
>>
>> Then I read K+R, and it was like the light coming on. The language let 
>> me do what I want (casting is the magic ingredient). Despite using 
>> early very buggy C compilers, I spent my time working on my algorithms 
>> rather than fighting the compiler.
>>
>> Pascal vendors noticed the exodus to C, and added a whole boatload of 
>> C-like extensions to Pascal to make it a usable. By then, though, it 
>> was too late to interest me; I never looked at Pascal again. (The 
>> other problem with all those extensions is every vendor did them 
>> differently, making Pascal probably the most non-portable language in 
>> existence because you *had* to use the extensions.)
>>
> 
> Eh? We're talking about the language according the Wirth here (as Walter 
> notes vis-a-vis Wirth's book). Somebody here ought to note that Pascal 
> was designed *solely* as an educational tool, for /teaching structured 
> programming/ ... the syntax and design was never intended as a solution 
> for general-purpose systems programming. It's silly to compare it to C

Yup.  And for that I think it was well-designed.  The syntax is clear 
and free of arcane symbology, and irritating enough to use for real work 
that students are well inclined to move on when they learn a more 
professional language ;-)  The pointer syntax in Pascal drives me 
absolutely insane.

> If you want to talk about languages intended for systems-programming, 
> perhaps you should compare to Modula-2 and Modula-3 instead. Now there's 
> a great language that missed its "market window" and/or opportunity.
> 
> Interesting to note that D is basically a Modula-3 clone, using C-like 
> syntax instead and adding some more op-overloading. Perhaps D could 
> adopt the more advanced 'import' capabilities from Modula-3 also? Back 
> in the dark ages, they understood such things rather well ... the design 
> in Modula-3 allows one to extend original, imported modules without fear 
> of breaking the code that imports them. What a concept <g>

Not to derail the topic, but I'm beginning to feel that the current 
symbol lookup mechanism in conjunction with visibility modifiers does a 
terrible job at separating interface from implementation.  As D is a 
module-based language, I firmly believe that I should not want to adopt 
an C/C++ style include model simply to make my private global symbols 
actually private.  I'd be interesting to see how Modula handled the 
minutiae of importing and symbol lookup.


Sean



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list