I used to encounter this article _all the time_ in the late 1990s as an argument against Borland Delphi, which was by far the most widely used Pascal variant th

I used to encounter this article _all the time_ in the late 1990s as an argument against Borland Delphi, which was by far the most widely used Pascal variant then. You can reply point by point about how it is factually wrong about Delphi: e.g. > There is no break statement for exiting loops. Delphi has a "break" statement. (1) > case statement ... there is no default clause Yes there is, the "else" case. (2) Many of these "extended syntax" features were likely added due to the criticisms in this paper. So in one sense the paper was valuable in causing that, in another sense it's usefulness was over by the late 1990s. And then the eventual fallback argument is: "Ok, then Delphi is not Pascal" which was technically true, but then this article is allowed to stand as "an argument against Pascal (not Delphi)" ... and is soon picked up again as an argument against Delphi (because it's "Pascal" ). Round and round it went. So tiresome and ignorant. 1) http://www.delphibasics.co.uk/RTL.asp?Name=Break http://www.delphibasics.co.uk/RTL.asp?Name=Break 2) http://www.delphibasics.co.uk/RTL.asp?Name=Case http://www.delphibasics.co.uk/RTL.asp?Name=Case