Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> 
> You need to look at the bigger picture. C didn't become popular because
> of PICs. There are many C programs that compile (and run) on any
> standard-compliant compiler, on quite different platforms. While
> platform differences sometimes need some conditional parts in the code,
> it is possible (and common) to write portable C code that compiles on
> gcc, VC++ (in C mode) and a number of other compilers and runs on Linux,
> Unix, Solaris, Windows, Mac OSX and others (and depending on the amount
> of resources and OS support required for the specific program, also on a
> bare-metal PIC). 
> 
> Also, while with Pascal you may be able to port your code from one
> Pascal to the other, from one platform to the other, but then you have
> two (or more) code bases. With C, even if you have to make adjustments
> for a specific platform, you usually integrate them into the code -- and
> end up with code that compiles and works on the previously supported
> platforms and on the new platform.
> 
> Try that with (any) Pascal. The lack of standardization (and of a
> standard preprocessor, for the sometimes necessary platform adjustments)
> makes this pretty much impossible.
> 
Let me laugh a bit... 
I jump into this so funny discussion since I'm an ol'Pascal'er among other
activities...
Maybe all of this WAS quite true a while ago, but nowadays we can see that
there is a LOT of #IFDEF in C sources to support multiple platforms. Nobody
(I think) is coding in "pure" C (or "pure" Pascal) - whatever that means -
because everybody want the bells and wistles of the compiler toolchain they
have choosen; if they don't manage toolchain specificities (a big work),
when they want to change there is always a bigest work to do to adapt their
supposed to be "portable" sources...
In Pascal this is the same, a lot of $IFDEF and so on... No less no more. 
This is far from "impossible" as you said. I do it every day since TP3. Some
of my old libraries still compiles both in TP3 and the latest Delphi. So
they are "portable".
What you qualify as "Pascal dialects" for me is nothing different than "C
dialects" and now there is a few Pascal ones that survives and the
differences are very tight. The more boring work is on adapting libraries
for one environment to another one, not on the language by itself. 
Pascal (and inheritors) is alive and still growing, thanks. OK, not so
popular as C but it is far from RIP.

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> 
> (I'm not trying to say that "C is better than Pascal" :)
> 
Just a bit ;-) ...



-----
Best regards,

Philippe.

http://www.pmpcomp.fr Pic Micro Pascal for all! 
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re-using-BREAK-in-%27C%27-tp24256799p24411202.html
Sent from the PIC - [PIC] mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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