> Pure Pascal as originally defined by Wirth and Jensen was nearly useless
as
> a real language.

Yes, AFAIK Niklaus Wirth did not even meant to use it as a real language,
only for teaching the concepts of structured programming. His later
creations, Modula and Oberon was more like real languages.

BTW, I think it was the early Mac where they used Pascal as the main
development language for most of the applications and probably for some OS
stuff as well, didn't they?

Tamas


On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Olin Lathrop <olin_piclist@embedinc.com>wrote:

> Peter wrote:
> > In continuation (and response) to the "I hate C because Pascal is so
> > wonderful" idea emitted here by several people,
>
> I think you have seriously misunderstood.  The fact that C sucks has
> nothing
> to do with what Pascal is like.  Pascal was only used as a example of how
> it
> can be done better.  Other languages also have strong type checking, fewer
> special characters, more rigid syntax, etc, etc, etc.
>
> > here is a little
> > about the original Pascal and about some of the "wonderful" features
> > it has, and where they originated:
>
> Pure Pascal as originally defined by Wirth and Jensen was nearly useless as
> a real language.  However the concepts and the syntax were good, so those
> who used Pascal for real made some modifications and additions.  The two
> most noteable where Borland and Apollo.  My own Pascal was modified and
> extended again starting with the Apollo definition.
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
> (978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>



-- 
Rudonix DoubleSaver
http://www.rudonix.com
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist