> >> (I'm not trying to say that "C is better than Pascal" :)
> >>
> > Just a bit ;-) ...
>
> No, I'm not. If you're reading this into my messages, maybe it's because
> you're defensive about Pascal. Fact is that Pascal is almost dead in the
> professional world. Another fact is that I started serious PC
> programming with Pascal. And yet another fact is that I had to give it
> up because Pascal is almost dead for most professional purposes. And
> part of this thread is about why this is.
>
> I really really didn't like it. Turbo Pascal was miles ahead of anything
> else. The IDE was snappy and functional, compilation was fast and the
> executables were, too, it was affordable and powerful. But it didn't
> make it into the big league, and my guess is that it's about
> standardization. Microsoft was and is big enough to be able to make a
> vendor-specific language popular (see VB and C#) without a
> vendor-independent standard, Borland wasn't and isn't, Delphi
> notwithstanding.
>
> It doesn't help pretending that Pascal isn't dead in the professional
> world, or make this into yet another "this language is better than that
> language" pissing contest... It's about finding out why Pascal, with all
> the perceived advantages, didn't make it -- and, arguably, at this
> point, has little chance of making it ever.


I still use TurboPascal when fiddling with TurboCNC.

That said, the differences are often just perception, BASIC is for little
kiddies, Pascal for quiche-eating professors, and 'Real Men' (TM) use C.

Years ago I'd write apps for people using either QuickC or QuickBasic (acually
PDS which could do overlays).  If they didn't get the source code I'd do it in
Basic, otherwise they got to choose.  Many insisted on C, even though I then
charged at least twice as much and took twice the time to do it.

The joke was, of course, that once compiled you couldn't tell the difference as
to whether it was in C or Basic.  (I wasn't writing ray-tracers or such things
where C would have been a better choice).

Microsoft wised up with Windows C & Basic, so VB didn't get a compiler, thus
letting the 'Real Men' (TM) get on with the job of doing whatever it is they
do.  Probably telling the VB weenies their language of choice sucks - "Pfft, it
doesn't even compile".

No-one needs the 'power' that C gives you these days, it's all libraries, web
apps and front-ends for SQL databases.  You don't need C for that.

Tony

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