NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/lang/c++-part1/3319

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-06 | 3.6 KB

Path: stern.fokus.gmd.de!news
From: Watson <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C vs Pascal
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 12:40:25 +0100
Organization: GMD FOKUS - Research Institute for Open Communication Systems
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4e0huu$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.fokus.gmd.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b4 (X11; I; SunOS 5.4 sun4m)

John A Ng wrote:
> 1.  C is portable.  Many people think C is portable in that it can be
> taken from one platform and compile in another.  That is incorrect since
> very very few programs written in C are fully portable except the
> absurdly small.  C is portable only in the sense that one learning in
> say a MSDOS environment can easily move to another (like UNIX) without
> too  much difficulty.  If you know Turbo Pascal, DOS/Windows is your
> only environment.
C is of course more portable than P, for there is an ANSI standard.
The non portability is caused by the existence of different
standards (Posix, X/Open or whatever). Turbo Pascal is NO
agreed standard. And, in fact, it's easier to depend on
ANSI than on Borland ;-)

> 3.  Pascal is for the learner and hobbist.  True but professionals too.
> Standard Pascal can do almost nothing -- which is the reason why pompous
> C programmers sneer at Pascal at being too academic.  Yes, but not for
> Turbo Pascal -- which is vaguely like the original.  It is attractive
> for the learner because Turbo Pascal is lightning fast.  Many
> professional programs are developed in Turbo Pascal!!!
But none of them can be run under Unix/Linux/OS2/VMS. So your programs
will only work with DOS/Windows on an Intel-based PC. That's a big
disadvantage.

> 2.  C is more efficient.  Bullshit.  C/C++ with all its standards is
> absurdly inefficient in terms of development time.  C headers compiles
> and compiles again for no apparent reason.  You must employ tricks to
> prevent the recompile.  There are so many inefficiencies that I just
> don't want to comment.  Turbo Pascal, on the other hand, is the most
> efficient compiler on earth.  It makes any C compiler cry!!! -- A
> staggering 20 to 1 ratio!!!  This is because there are no standards for
> Turbo Pascal and Borland is free to optimize the languge and features as
> it sees fit.
Efficiency should not be measured by compiling time. If
you are a professional and the compiler is too slow, buy
a faster machine. But C has some possibilities that Pascal
hasn't, i.e. pointer to functions and variable parameter
lists. Of course you could invent these things for Pascal
too. But not portable.

> 5.  C and Pascal are similar.  True, Turbo Pascal could properly be
> called a dialect of C.  However, the latest reincarnation of Turbo
> Pascal (called Delphi) includes many Smalltalk concepts
So why don't you use the superset? Either C++ or Smalltalk?

C is designed as a portable macro assembler with intergrated
elements of higher PLs. A programmer could use it for OS
design as well as for user interfaces or whatever. Pascal could
be like this as well, but it did not become a standard.
To avoid the permanent repetition of work, a professional
programmer needs standards. Remember former times: with
every new OS you needed to redesign _all_ your software.
Today you need to redesign only parts (this is bad as well,
but it becomes less).
--
*    Greetinx from Watson ([e-mail])
    http://www.fokus.gmd.de/ovma/employees/sayegh/entry.html
    signal(SIGSEGV,SIG_IGN);