RE: HAPPY TRANSGENDER DAY
BY: poindexter FORTRAN to Mary4 on Wed Apr 17 2024 06:22:00

> I don't know a lot about Python except a little bit of syntax. As long
> as the language promotes structured programming, I suppose it's
> appropriate for teaching. PASCAL wasn't a great language for a lot of
> projects but it was great to learn with.

i wana learn pascal! xD it seems interesting. i wish the un diverged from one
of the simplist languages to more complex languages like C and ASM :D

---
■ Synchronet ■ bbs.anduin.net

-=> Mary4 wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

> I don't know a lot about Python except a little bit of syntax. As long
> as the language promotes structured programming, I suppose it's
> appropriate for teaching. PASCAL wasn't a great language for a lot of
> projects but it was great to learn with.

Ma> i wana learn pascal! xD it seems interesting.

Pascal was the "teaching language" of the day. It was the language they taught
to beginning programmers so that they picked up good habits.

Once you got into larger systems, though, Pascal sort of breaks down. There
was no way to link in libraries, for example (well, not until later).

Today, the "teaching language" is Python.

Ma> i wish the un diverged
Ma> from one of the simplist languages to more complex languages like C and
Ma> ASM :D

It's not the complexity. It's the freedom. Pascal kept programmers tightly
controlled. Which was needed for a teaching language so that newby programmers
didn't "shoot themselves in the foot". C allowed programmers to shoot
themselves. But it also allowed programmers to do things that Pascal wouldn't.

Assembler was complete freedom and many programmers have self-inflicted bullet
holes from using that. But, again, it would allow you to do things higher
level languages wouldn't.

.... Just got a new car for my wife... Great trade...
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
� Synchronet � My Brand-New BBS

Re: Re: HAPPY TRANSGENDER DAY
By: Dr. What to Mary4 on Fri Apr 19 2024 07:48 am

> It's not the complexity. It's the freedom. Pascal kept programmers tightly
> controlled. Which was needed for a teaching language so that newby
> programmers didn't "shoot themselves in the foot". C allowed programmers to
> shoot themselves. But it also allowed programmers to do things that Pascal
> wouldn't.

I don't agree. Granted, I never used a compiler that conformed strictly to Nicholas' original design. Even the Pascal compiler in college (on VAX/VMS) had extensions and allowed the use of pointers. Nearly all of my Pascal experience is with Turbo Pascal and Delphi.

It wasn't as _easy_ to shoot yourself in the foot with Pascal compared to C, but you definitely could. Every variant of Pascal that I've used allowed the use of pointers, which may be the most common weapon used when shooting yourself in the foot. When coding, anyway...

---
■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

-=> Skylar wrote to Dr. What <=-

Sk> I don't agree. Granted, I never used a compiler that conformed strictly
Sk> to Nicholas' original design. Even the Pascal compiler in college (on
Sk> VAX/VMS) had extensions and allowed the use of pointers.

Being able to use pointers is not a good example.
Could you treat pointers are a number and add to it and change where it's
pointing to? Nope.
In Pascal, all you could do is use the pointer to get at the data it was
pointing to.

Sk> Nearly all of
Sk> my Pascal experience is with Turbo Pascal and Delphi.

For me, it was originally Univac Pascal then Turbo Pascal. Once I got to my
"higher level" CS cources, we moved to C - but we were also doing compiler and
operating system construction at that level.

.... Have a cold? Let me introduce you to Doc Jack Kevorkian.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
� Synchronet � My Brand-New BBS