> Are Clascal, Lisa Pascal, and Object Pascal similar? Well, they are similar in any case since all are Pascal descendants and all are specifically descendants

> Are Clascal, Lisa Pascal, and Object Pascal similar? Well, they are similar in any case since all are Pascal descendants and all are specifically descendants of Apple II and III Pascal. Clascal added OO features to Lisa Pascal - some new keywords and semantic rules; you can have a look at the grammar here https://github.com/rochus-keller/LisaPascal/blob/master/syntax/LisaPascal.ebnf https://github.com/rochus-keller/LisaPascal/blob/master/synt... where the Clascal additions are framed by ifdefs. Object Pascal had yet other keywords and semantics to achieve the same goal (e.g. "object" instead of "subclass", class name prefixes for methods instead of "methods of" blocks, etc. > how quickly Pascal and Object Pascal faded from use Lisa Pascal, Clascal and Object Pascal had some disadvantages to e.g. C++; there were e.g. no namespaces; whatever was imported with the "uses" clause shared the same global namespace. Apple started to use C and C++ around 1988 for internal software development; according to the CHM interview with Larry Tesler MacApp only survived that long because with Adobe there was a big user; and there was external pressure so MacApp was eventually rewritten in C++; and remember that Jobs neither used Pascal at Next, but Objective-C instead.