4 ms·

The damage this viewpoint was massive. Pascal could have been our present, but now we live the mistake of base so much on top of C/C++, and because we never le

by mamcx 7y ago

The damage this viewpoint was massive. Pascal could have been our present, but now we live the mistake of base so much on top of C/C++, and because we never learn, repeat with JS.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
This viewpoint? Listen, I've had the misfortune to work in a non-enhanced (Jensen & Wirth-ish) Pascal, and what this article says is true. And it's true that the problems describe get in your way, sometimes annoyingly, and sometimes really badly. The damage to Pascal was from Pascal, not this paper or the viewpoint it represents. (I'm not going to defend JS, though...)
- mamcx 7y ago
  > to work in a non-enhanced That is like to work in first generation C. But the viewpoint cause massive damage: Pascal get a reputation based in the first version with a limited scope, despite have very good points at his favor. In a modern example, is like dismiss GO because lack of generics and verbose error handling, and consider C better for some OTHER reasons, that is what actually happened with pascal and other langs. ie: Happens ofter that some critize lang/tool for X (could be truth) ignore Y (that is a good point) and still choose Z (for other reasons). In the case of C: Is more popular, can I do funky things with pointers, my OS is made on that.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    I worked in C just before and just after my gig in Pascal. While C had flaws, it was a more usable language than Pascal. First version C, first version Pascal. That's what Pascal apologists never want to admit. They still, 50 years later, either don't understand it or won't accept it: C was more usable than Pascal. Pascal's story may have been better, it's theory may have been better, but when it came to actual ability to write programs, C was better. Now, Pascal improved. Various versions fixed various flaws in various nonstandard ways. But the same was true of C.

by mamcx 7y ago

The damage this viewpoint was massive. Pascal could have been our present, but now we live the mistake of base so much on top of C/C++, and because we never learn, repeat with JS.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

This viewpoint? Listen, I've had the misfortune to work in a non-enhanced (Jensen & Wirth-ish) Pascal, and what this article says is true. And it's true that the problems describe get in your way, sometimes annoyingly, and sometimes really badly. The damage to Pascal was from Pascal, not this paper or the viewpoint it represents. (I'm not going to defend JS, though...)

mamcx 7y ago
> to work in a non-enhanced That is like to work in first generation C. But the viewpoint cause massive damage: Pascal get a reputation based in the first version with a limited scope, despite have very good points at his favor. In a modern example, is like dismiss GO because lack of generics and verbose error handling, and consider C better for some OTHER reasons, that is what actually happened with pascal and other langs. ie: Happens ofter that some critize lang/tool for X (could be truth) ignore Y (that is a good point) and still choose Z (for other reasons). In the case of C: Is more popular, can I do funky things with pointers, my OS is made on that.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  I worked in C just before and just after my gig in Pascal. While C had flaws, it was a more usable language than Pascal. First version C, first version Pascal. That's what Pascal apologists never want to admit. They still, 50 years later, either don't understand it or won't accept it: C was more usable than Pascal. Pascal's story may have been better, it's theory may have been better, but when it came to actual ability to write programs, C was better. Now, Pascal improved. Various versions fixed various flaws in various nonstandard ways. But the same was true of C.