Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
why the pascal family of languages (Pascal, Ada, Modula-2,2,Oberon, Delphi, Algol,...) failed compared to the C family?
1,378 views
Skip to first unread message
Nasser M. Abbasi
Jul 16, 2014, 8:25:17 AM7/16/14
to
The first language I really liked was Pascal.
But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
clearly failed to become popular, at least compared
to the C-family (C, C++, C#, ....)
The question is why did this happen?
My theory: C was used to develop Unix/Linux and
Windows, and this made it easier for applications
to be written in C/C++ since the interface to the OS
was easier. VMS did not choose C (considered a huge
blunder by many. They choose Bliss
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLISS instead! and we
all know what happens to VMS.
What is your theory on this? Was there another
reason or set of reasons?
Can we all blame this success of the C family of
languages on Dennis Ritchie and Brian Kernighan
brilliance and it being used for Unix?
--Nasser
Luke A. Guest
Jul 16, 2014, 12:55:08 PM7/16/14
to
Laziness to learn a better language.
jo...@peppermind.com
Jul 16, 2014, 1:40:50 PM7/16/14
to
Some reasons (subjective list):
1. People like to hack and only (too) late started worrying about safety and security in general computing.
2. Lack of education about programming language design (during the 70s-90s)
3. The success of Unix written in C, the fact that Apple abandoned Pascal.
4. Bad language "politics" & marketing: the community split up too early because Wirth started to change to Modula, then Modula 2, then Oberon, etc.
... and regarding Ada specifically:
5. Availability of completely free and unrestricted compilers and tool chains for C and C++ as opposed to Ada
6. Variety of available C and C++ compilers as opposed to Ada compilers
7. Slightly unintuitive and overloaded core syntax of Ada (e.g. "with" and "when", pragma, alignment clauses)
8. A too modern and too rich core feature set in the early days (in combination with 2, creating confusion and wrong rumours about "design by committee")
9. At least in the past, many people tended to prefer code brevity over code readability (this trend has changed a bit, due to scripting language and the increased complexity of the programs and their OS environments)
10. Jean David Ichbiah apparently did not have a long beard - it has been observed that only programming languages whose inventor has a long beard become truly popular, although nobody knows why.
1. People like to hack and only (too) late started worrying about safety and security in general computing.
2. Lack of education about programming language design (during the 70s-90s)
3. The success of Unix written in C, the fact that Apple abandoned Pascal.
4. Bad language "politics" & marketing: the community split up too early because Wirth started to change to Modula, then Modula 2, then Oberon, etc.
... and regarding Ada specifically:
5. Availability of completely free and unrestricted compilers and tool chains for C and C++ as opposed to Ada
6. Variety of available C and C++ compilers as opposed to Ada compilers
7. Slightly unintuitive and overloaded core syntax of Ada (e.g. "with" and "when", pragma, alignment clauses)
8. A too modern and too rich core feature set in the early days (in combination with 2, creating confusion and wrong rumours about "design by committee")
9. At least in the past, many people tended to prefer code brevity over code readability (this trend has changed a bit, due to scripting language and the increased complexity of the programs and their OS environments)
10. Jean David Ichbiah apparently did not have a long beard - it has been observed that only programming languages whose inventor has a long beard become truly popular, although nobody knows why.
Adam Beneschan
Jul 16, 2014, 1:41:44 PM7/16/14
to
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 5:25:17 AM UTC-7, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
>
> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
> clearly failed to become popular, at least compared
> to the C-family (C, C++, C#, ....)
I haven't researched this much, so this response is just my take based on my impressions of what has gone on.
> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
>
> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
> clearly failed to become popular, at least compared
> to the C-family (C, C++, C#, ....)
Algol, Pascal's predecessor (at least when it comes to language syntax), was never really popular in the U.S., although I don't know why.
Pascal was designed as a teaching language. And it does seem that it was used a lot in introductory computer science courses after it was created. Unfortunately, Pascal wasn't general-purpose enough to be used for everything in the real world, and I suspect that that's why the C family took over: students who learned Pascal in college found that it couldn't be used in a production environment without extensions, and C was the best and most viable alternative (compared to COBOL, FORTRAN, BASIC, and maybe PL/I although that language never took off either). Having a set of library routines helped (the original Pascal didn't even have a concept of using an external library). So I think there's some truth in your idea of Unix being built on C, which made it easier to define C-based libraries to interface with the OS. Nevertheless, Pascal could have included a way to interface to an OS (even an OS written in C). If this had been added to the language early enough, along with some other changes to make Pascal suitable for production use (the requirement for array types to have fixed bounds was a definite hindrance, IMHO), I think it might have won out.
By the time Ada and Modula came along, it was too late, I suspect. It didn't help that many university faculty didn't want to be associated with a language whose design was spearheaded by the U.S. military.
> My theory: C was used to develop Unix/Linux and
> Windows, and this made it easier for applications
> to be written in C/C++ since the interface to the OS
> was easier.
-- Adam
Adam Beneschan
Jul 16, 2014, 1:47:47 PM7/16/14
to
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 10:40:50 AM UTC-7, jo...@peppermind.com wrote:
> 10. Jean David Ichbiah apparently did not have a long beard - it has been observed that only programming languages whose inventor has a long beard become truly popular, although nobody knows why.
Length is not a factor. Judging from a quick Google search, James Gosling's and Bjarne Stroustrup's beards are well-trimmed, not long. But Jean Ichbiah didn't have a beard at all.
> 10. Jean David Ichbiah apparently did not have a long beard - it has been observed that only programming languages whose inventor has a long beard become truly popular, although nobody knows why.
-- Adam
Simon Wright
Jul 16, 2014, 3:22:50 PM7/16/14
to
jo...@peppermind.com writes:
> 7. Slightly unintuitive and overloaded core syntax of Ada (e.g. "with"
> and "when", pragma, alignment clauses)
Pragma and alignment clauses are hardly core! And what about static (for
> 7. Slightly unintuitive and overloaded core syntax of Ada (e.g. "with"
> and "when", pragma, alignment clauses)
example).
Jeffrey Carter
Jul 16, 2014, 3:52:50 PM7/16/14
to
AT&T distributed Unix, with a C compiler, free to universities. So a lot of
universities used C and a lot of people were exposed to C that way.
Pascal was designed as a teaching language and wasn't usable for real-life problems.
In the US, at least, "real men" used FORTRAN in the 1960s and 1970s. C is even
more "manly".
C was designed by a coder for coding. It's for writing code quickly, without
concern for such inessentials as readability, modification, or correctness. Most
developers are coders.
It takes a lot of effort to get something to sort of do most of what you want in
C. This gives a tremendous feeling of accomplishment. Spending a lot of time
thinking, then correcting some typos caught by the compiler, and then having it
work correctly just doesn't cut it.
--
Jeff Carter
"What lazy lout left these wires all over the lawn?"
Poppy
98
universities used C and a lot of people were exposed to C that way.
Pascal was designed as a teaching language and wasn't usable for real-life problems.
In the US, at least, "real men" used FORTRAN in the 1960s and 1970s. C is even
more "manly".
C was designed by a coder for coding. It's for writing code quickly, without
concern for such inessentials as readability, modification, or correctness. Most
developers are coders.
It takes a lot of effort to get something to sort of do most of what you want in
C. This gives a tremendous feeling of accomplishment. Spending a lot of time
thinking, then correcting some typos caught by the compiler, and then having it
work correctly just doesn't cut it.
--
Jeff Carter
"What lazy lout left these wires all over the lawn?"
Poppy
98
Jeffrey Carter
Jul 16, 2014, 3:57:53 PM7/16/14
to
I have a beard. You language lawyers and compiler writers should help me finish
defining NINA and get a bunch of free compilers available for all the important
platforms. It's guaranteed to become popular.
Georg Bauhaus
Jul 16, 2014, 4:52:00 PM7/16/14
to
(Modula-17 -> Scala) have meanwhile spoiled the correlation.
Grace_Hopper, Jean E Sammet, and Barbara Liskov also
also challenge the legend of beards, I think.
torral...@gmail.com
Jul 16, 2014, 6:10:05 PM7/16/14
to
Well, yes they are popular... But keep in mind this motto I've used for my whole life; "IF EVERYBODY DOES IT, DOES NOT MEAN IT'S RIGHT. IF NOBODY DOES IT, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS WRONG"
Now, who would you blame if your cancer chemiotherapy supplies you with a full dose of radiation (http://www.ccnr.org/fatal_dose.html)? Or the software that controls the breaks in your car fail (http://www.safetyresearch.net/blog/articles/toyota-unintended-acceleration-and-big-bowl-%E2%80%9Cspaghetti%E2%80%9D-code)?
ADA will catch on... just give it time :)
Now, who would you blame if your cancer chemiotherapy supplies you with a full dose of radiation (http://www.ccnr.org/fatal_dose.html)? Or the software that controls the breaks in your car fail (http://www.safetyresearch.net/blog/articles/toyota-unintended-acceleration-and-big-bowl-%E2%80%9Cspaghetti%E2%80%9D-code)?
ADA will catch on... just give it time :)
Simon Clubley
Jul 16, 2014, 7:06:01 PM7/16/14
to
popular and then later on, so was Delphi. (I would love to see Ada
have the same popularity as Delphi has had.)
As for Oberon, it was popular in some areas, but mainly in university
research environments. However, it's still taught in at least one
university course (the Oberon-2 compiler I have installed was written
for a university undergraduate course.)
Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world
Dan'l Miller
Jul 16, 2014, 10:14:08 PM7/16/14
to
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 2:52:50 PM UTC-5, Jeffrey Carter wrote:
> AT&T distributed Unix, with a C compiler, free to universities. So a lot of
> universities used C and a lot of people were exposed to C that way.
This was part of it. (And Ada was heavily regulated by DoD who held the trademark on Ada (now expired). The tight grip on Ada gave it an air of expensiveness and lack of freedom to tinker. C became popular in part due to there being so many nonportable dialects---hence the need for the 1988 ANSI C day of reckoning.
> AT&T distributed Unix, with a C compiler, free to universities. So a lot of
> universities used C and a lot of people were exposed to C that way.
> Pascal was designed as a teaching language and wasn't usable for real-life problems.
> In the US, at least, "real men" used FORTRAN in the 1960s and 1970s. C is even
> more "manly".
I am not criticizing Ada. It is a beautiful engineering achievement. I am only pointing out the psychology of prejudice & bigotry that goes on in people's minds.
> C was designed by a coder for coding. It's for writing code quickly, without
> concern for such inessentials as readability, modification, or correctness. Most
> developers are coders.
an...@att.net
Jul 17, 2014, 1:29:29 AM7/17/14
to
J. Carter is right about AT&T selling or giving away it's OS with
C back in the 70s. Which college professors who knew Algol, Cobol,
and Fortran, etc, found it was cheaper and simpler to learn and use
C then to give up their budgets for high dollars older and some
outdated languages compiler. So, they started forcing C on all
students ever since. And that teaching paradigm continues even today.
And Microsoft, kind of followed AT&T example with its computer in the
classroom type program and irs preinstalled OS on most PC systems. Now
today, every kid knows Microsoft Windows and calls all others OS jokes
or illegal Windows wantabees with KDE, GOME and most other GUIs. Each
OS needs it own GUI that does not look like Windows.
For Pascal and Modulus-2 systems, have been replaced by the Java
internet and graphical system. With anyone having a jave runtime
subsystem or an internet browser can execute te code. Java is a
compile once and run almost anywhere, anytime. The only problem is
Java is slower because its not a native system code.
Ada has big problems, that Ada is unlikey to overcome.
First, from its conceptual birth in the late 1970s and until 1998 the
the US DOD had a controlling instest in Ada, which made a lot of
programmers shy away from Ada. Even today programmers still stay away
from Ada because of the US DOD. Plus, when the US drop Ada in 1998 most
computer implementation of Ada were drop, so companies like DEC, SGI,
SUN, Cray, all drop support for Ada back in 1998. So, now there only 2
or 3 systems that are up to date Ada 2012 the old IBM Apex system which
was sold and the Adacore's GNAT system. All others active Ada compilers
are still either Ada 83 or Ada 95 versions.
And a more direct problem is that people do not trust Ada. Because
while the Adacore's GNAT system can be download and compiled for a
new system, the majority of the computer world which uses Microsoft
windows still has a problem with open source design. Businesses
do not trust anything that is FREE. And also since Microsoft does not
like or trust open source aka GNAT so most that uses Microsoft will
never trust GNAT or Ada.
A third problem is the Ada libraries. Except for the core libraries
which include OOPs there are no graphical or other libraries written
for or in Ada. And today most programs require graphics. Yes, you can
bind to other libraries but they are not written in or approved for Ada,
so testing and debugging can be a problem.
C back in the 70s. Which college professors who knew Algol, Cobol,
and Fortran, etc, found it was cheaper and simpler to learn and use
C then to give up their budgets for high dollars older and some
outdated languages compiler. So, they started forcing C on all
students ever since. And that teaching paradigm continues even today.
And Microsoft, kind of followed AT&T example with its computer in the
classroom type program and irs preinstalled OS on most PC systems. Now
today, every kid knows Microsoft Windows and calls all others OS jokes
or illegal Windows wantabees with KDE, GOME and most other GUIs. Each
OS needs it own GUI that does not look like Windows.
For Pascal and Modulus-2 systems, have been replaced by the Java
internet and graphical system. With anyone having a jave runtime
subsystem or an internet browser can execute te code. Java is a
compile once and run almost anywhere, anytime. The only problem is
Java is slower because its not a native system code.
Ada has big problems, that Ada is unlikey to overcome.
First, from its conceptual birth in the late 1970s and until 1998 the
the US DOD had a controlling instest in Ada, which made a lot of
programmers shy away from Ada. Even today programmers still stay away
from Ada because of the US DOD. Plus, when the US drop Ada in 1998 most
computer implementation of Ada were drop, so companies like DEC, SGI,
SUN, Cray, all drop support for Ada back in 1998. So, now there only 2
or 3 systems that are up to date Ada 2012 the old IBM Apex system which
was sold and the Adacore's GNAT system. All others active Ada compilers
are still either Ada 83 or Ada 95 versions.
And a more direct problem is that people do not trust Ada. Because
while the Adacore's GNAT system can be download and compiled for a
new system, the majority of the computer world which uses Microsoft
windows still has a problem with open source design. Businesses
do not trust anything that is FREE. And also since Microsoft does not
like or trust open source aka GNAT so most that uses Microsoft will
never trust GNAT or Ada.
A third problem is the Ada libraries. Except for the core libraries
which include OOPs there are no graphical or other libraries written
for or in Ada. And today most programs require graphics. Yes, you can
bind to other libraries but they are not written in or approved for Ada,
so testing and debugging can be a problem.
Harvey White
Jul 17, 2014, 7:08:25 AM7/17/14
to
On 2014-07-16, Nasser M. Abbasi <n...@12000.org> wrote:
>
> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
> clearly failed to become popular, at least compared
> to the C-family (C, C++, C#, ....)
>
> The question is why did this happen?
Another question is why does this matter?
>
> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
> clearly failed to become popular, at least compared
> to the C-family (C, C++, C#, ....)
>
> The question is why did this happen?
Popularity does help in that people still write toolchains. Otherwise,
history seems to show good and popular are inversely related. And technology
seems to be going in the direction of least common denominator. Lots to be
said here. Not enough time to say it.
> My theory: C was used to develop Unix/Linux and
> Windows, and this made it easier for applications
> to be written in C/C++ since the interface to the OS
> was easier.
the language the OS was written in. That alone has been enough to prop up C
and C-derivatives long after they should have been killed. There really
isn't anything else to code with in Linux and UNIX if you need full
system interface. And as many have complained this also affects library
utility and access.
> VMS did not choose C (considered a huge
> blunder by many. They choose Bliss
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLISS instead! and we
> all know what happens to VMS.
is written in their MACRO assembly language rather than BLISS but I'm not
sure it's relevant. The issue AIUI is somewhat tangential to Ada's
problems. VMS people seem to present a good case that VMS is really a good,
safe OS. Linux is cheap, cheap and that's the overriding concern these
past few decades. It only gets worse as time goes by.
>
> What is your theory on this? Was there another
> reason or set of reasons?
because of politics and ideology. The C people feel special that they can
fight corporate America however and whatever that means and they also
pride themselves on being able to navigate the minefield of a language that
wasn't designed but rather just evolved (putting it kindly). C doesn't
require them to play by the rules- playing by the rules is a nasty reminder
of those bad bad corporations they're rebelling against. Chaos and
sloppiness are a sick form of freedom for those people, while rigor is a
symbol of everything they despise. If it were just laziness it wouldn't have
gone this far. Make no mistake it is mostly politics and ideology. And their
junk does run everywhere...badly though.
Look at the huge number of critical errors and security holes in C-based
software. Sure we can say there are more errors in C code because there is
simply more C code and of course there is some truth to that. But C is a
very unsafe, tricky and poorly-designed language and it and the culture
behind it promotes dangerous practices.
>
> Can we all blame this success of the C family of
> languages on Dennis Ritchie and Brian Kernighan
> brilliance and it being used for Unix?
don't think anyone can. Dennis Ritchie was an effective coder. Kernighan is
a good writer and probably a half-decent mathematician. Together they were
bad designers. Nothing about UNIX was designed. It's about the biggest mess
that ever lived. Nothing is done properly, there are holes and edge cases
and just plain stuff that should never have been done in everything they
did. They might even be responsible for today's portable piece of junk is
good enough philosophy.
They were good marketers and effective preachers and they were able to rally
a whole political movement based on corp. bashing notably while being paid
by Bell Labs to do so. Giving away UNIX to universities was a big help in
adopting C. I think the combination of their manufactured Davy and Goliath
self-image along with good penetration in the liberal "college" scene was
all it took to get to where we are now.
It is more than a little ironic that guys from Bell Labs should be revered
as corp. busters though. Most of the unwashed masses need religious leaders
(Stallman, to wit) and a religion (Gnu/FSF), not a good programming
environment or language.
Harvey
Luke A. Guest
Jul 17, 2014, 7:53:18 AM7/17/14
to
Jeffrey Carter
> So if STT grows a beard, Parasail will become popular?
>
> I have a beard. You language lawyers and compiler writers should help me
> finish defining NINA and get a bunch of free compilers available for all
> the important platforms. It's guaranteed to become popular.
URL?
>
> I have a beard. You language lawyers and compiler writers should help me
> finish defining NINA and get a bunch of free compilers available for all
> the important platforms. It's guaranteed to become popular.
Simon Clubley
Jul 17, 2014, 8:04:44 AM7/17/14
to
On 2014-07-17, Harvey White <hwhit...@is.invalid> wrote:
> On 2014-07-16, Nasser M. Abbasi <n...@12000.org> wrote:
>>
>> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
>> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
>> clearly failed to become popular, at least compared
>> to the C-family (C, C++, C#, ....)
>>
>> The question is why did this happen?
>
> Another question is why does this matter?
>
> Popularity does help in that people still write toolchains. Otherwise,
> history seems to show good and popular are inversely related. And technology
> seems to be going in the direction of least common denominator. Lots to be
> said here. Not enough time to say it.
>
It matters because if we can get people to start using a safer language
> On 2014-07-16, Nasser M. Abbasi <n...@12000.org> wrote:
>>
>> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
>> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
>> clearly failed to become popular, at least compared
>> to the C-family (C, C++, C#, ....)
>>
>> The question is why did this happen?
>
> Another question is why does this matter?
>
> Popularity does help in that people still write toolchains. Otherwise,
> history seems to show good and popular are inversely related. And technology
> seems to be going in the direction of least common denominator. Lots to be
> said here. Not enough time to say it.
>
then maybe, just maybe, we might see a major reduction in the number
of security issues in common languages.
There's also no need for a LCD language to be an insecure LCD language.
Unfortunately, one of the reasons everyone goes for C is because it's
so widely available you can guarantee your code will work with every
platform/target/mainstream programming language out there.
In order to replace C with another safer LCD language, that other language
needs to be available on the same range of platforms/targets or people
will continue to write libraries designed for wide use in C simply
because they don't have any other choice at the moment.
>> My theory: C was used to develop Unix/Linux and
>> Windows, and this made it easier for applications
>> to be written in C/C++ since the interface to the OS
>> was easier.
>
> I think so. The best language to write code on a given OS is almost always
> the language the OS was written in. That alone has been enough to prop up C
> and C-derivatives long after they should have been killed. There really
> isn't anything else to code with in Linux and UNIX if you need full
> system interface. And as many have complained this also affects library
> utility and access.
>
least for traditional procedural languages.
>> VMS did not choose C (considered a huge
>> blunder by many. They choose Bliss
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLISS instead! and we
>> all know what happens to VMS.
>
> That is not because of not choosing C. And I believe by now most of of VMS
> is written in their MACRO assembly language rather than BLISS but I'm not
> sure it's relevant. The issue AIUI is somewhat tangential to Ada's
> problems. VMS people seem to present a good case that VMS is really a good,
> safe OS. Linux is cheap, cheap and that's the overriding concern these
> past few decades. It only gets worse as time goes by.
>
later VMS code and you can now write VMS device drivers in C and have
been able to do so for many years. (Unlike Ada, VMS is a part of my day
job.)
There's still a great amount of MACRO/BLISS around however. You would
have to ask on comp.os.vms for some numbers however because I don't
have a feeling for the VMS code base breakdown by the language used.
Simon Clubley
Jul 17, 2014, 8:11:54 AM7/17/14
to
On 2014-07-17, Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
> On 2014-07-17, Harvey White <hwhit...@is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Another question is why does this matter?
>>
>> Popularity does help in that people still write toolchains. Otherwise,
>> history seems to show good and popular are inversely related. And technology
>> seems to be going in the direction of least common denominator. Lots to be
>> said here. Not enough time to say it.
>>
>
> It matters because if we can get people to start using a safer language
> then maybe, just maybe, we might see a major reduction in the number
> of security issues in common languages.
>
That should say "common libraries", not "common languages". Sorry. :-)
> On 2014-07-17, Harvey White <hwhit...@is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Another question is why does this matter?
>>
>> Popularity does help in that people still write toolchains. Otherwise,
>> history seems to show good and popular are inversely related. And technology
>> seems to be going in the direction of least common denominator. Lots to be
>> said here. Not enough time to say it.
>>
>
> It matters because if we can get people to start using a safer language
> then maybe, just maybe, we might see a major reduction in the number
> of security issues in common languages.
>
Dmitry A. Kazakov
Jul 17, 2014, 8:20:00 AM7/17/14
to
On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:04:44 +0000 (UTC), Simon Clubley wrote:
> That was back in the VAX days. There's been a movement towards C within
> later VMS code and you can now write VMS device drivers in C and have
> been able to do so for many years.
MACRO-11 was a better language than C, IMO.
> That was back in the VAX days. There's been a movement towards C within
> later VMS code and you can now write VMS device drivers in C and have
> been able to do so for many years.
> (Unlike Ada, VMS is a part of my day job.)
compiler at that time.
--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
Dan'l Miller
Jul 17, 2014, 8:24:53 AM7/17/14
to
On Thursday, July 17, 2014 12:29:29 AM UTC-5, an...@att.net wrote:
> ... So, now there only 2
> And a more direct problem is that people do not trust Ada. Because
> while the Adacore's GNAT system can be download and compiled for a
> new system, the majority of the computer world which uses Microsoft
> windows still has a problem with open source design. Businesses
> do not trust anything that is FREE. And also since Microsoft does not
> like or trust open source aka GNAT so most that uses Microsoft will
> never trust GNAT or Ada.
I think that you are inventorying the incorrect lacks of trust: People (irrationally) fear that all varieties of GNAT are GPLed instead of GMGPLed. Those who get over that obstacle fear that FSF GNAT is riddled with far more bugs than AdaCore's GNAT Pro.
> A third problem is the Ada libraries. Except for the core libraries
> which include OOPs there are no graphical or other libraries written
> for or in Ada. ...
http://gnavi.org
There actually does exist a GUI library written entirely in Ada for Ada: Gnavi. The bad news is that despite being a COM library too, it does not (yet?) support COM-based Windows Runtime at Windows 8.X & onward for store apps. The worse news is that (although 2004 aspirations to the contrary) it was never ported to Mac OS X or any Linux GUI framework (GTK, KDE, X Window).
The fascinating thing to me is that Gnavi is a GUI library, Gnavi is a COM library, Gnavi's goal was to be a bigger better FOSS Borland Delphi, but Gnavi is very rarely mentioned by the Ada community. Gnavi might be a foundation from which to expand for Ada to enter a fresh modern era of perception among currently-nonAda programmers (i.e., the ones who think that Ada is spelled ADA).
> ... So, now there only 2
> or 3 systems that are up to date Ada 2012 the old IBM Apex system which
> was sold and the Adacore's GNAT system. All others active Ada compilers
> are still either Ada 83 or Ada 95 versions.
Conversely, if there were only 1 implementation (GNAT), then Ada would be in much the same position as Perl, Python (until lately with Pyrex & IronPython), and Ruby: a benevolent dictator for life produces the 1 true implementation of the language's translator/interpreter.
> was sold and the Adacore's GNAT system. All others active Ada compilers
> are still either Ada 83 or Ada 95 versions.
> And a more direct problem is that people do not trust Ada. Because
> while the Adacore's GNAT system can be download and compiled for a
> new system, the majority of the computer world which uses Microsoft
> windows still has a problem with open source design. Businesses
> do not trust anything that is FREE. And also since Microsoft does not
> like or trust open source aka GNAT so most that uses Microsoft will
> never trust GNAT or Ada.
> A third problem is the Ada libraries. Except for the core libraries
> which include OOPs there are no graphical or other libraries written
http://gnavi.org
There actually does exist a GUI library written entirely in Ada for Ada: Gnavi. The bad news is that despite being a COM library too, it does not (yet?) support COM-based Windows Runtime at Windows 8.X & onward for store apps. The worse news is that (although 2004 aspirations to the contrary) it was never ported to Mac OS X or any Linux GUI framework (GTK, KDE, X Window).
The fascinating thing to me is that Gnavi is a GUI library, Gnavi is a COM library, Gnavi's goal was to be a bigger better FOSS Borland Delphi, but Gnavi is very rarely mentioned by the Ada community. Gnavi might be a foundation from which to expand for Ada to enter a fresh modern era of perception among currently-nonAda programmers (i.e., the ones who think that Ada is spelled ADA).
Jeffrey Carter
Jul 17, 2014, 1:06:23 PM7/17/14
to
http://thinkingofnina.blogspot.com/
but as no one seemed interested that has sort of fizzled.
--
Jeff Carter
"You a big nose have it."
Never Give a Sucker an Even Break
107
leonid...@gmail.com
Jul 17, 2014, 5:37:10 PM7/17/14
to
Nasser M. Abbasi
Jul 17, 2014, 6:25:05 PM7/17/14
to
On 7/17/2014 4:37 PM, leonid...@gmail.com wrote:
> It seems to me that there is no interest that Ada has become a widely used programming language.
>For example my article "Ada for desktop application" was not accepted on AdaEurope-2014 conference.
>It describes how to in pure Ada-2012 application works with GUI, Database, Multimedia, Web,
>Network, Touch devices, Sensors and many others. And it much more easy than from C++,C# or Java
>
Would you have a link to your paper?
> It seems to me that there is no interest that Ada has become a widely used programming language.
>For example my article "Ada for desktop application" was not accepted on AdaEurope-2014 conference.
>It describes how to in pure Ada-2012 application works with GUI, Database, Multimedia, Web,
>Network, Touch devices, Sensors and many others. And it much more easy than from C++,C# or Java
>
thanks.,
--Nasser
Shark8
Jul 17, 2014, 7:50:37 PM7/17/14
to
On 17-Jul-14 15:37, leonid...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> It seems to me that there is no interest that Ada has become a widely used programming language. For example my article "Ada for desktop application" was not accepted on AdaEurope-2014 conference. It describes how to in pure Ada-2012 application works with GUI, Database, Multimedia, Web, Network, Touch devices, Sensors and many others. And it much more easy than from C++,C# or Java
>
Interesting, could I get a copy of that paper from you?
>
> It seems to me that there is no interest that Ada has become a widely used programming language. For example my article "Ada for desktop application" was not accepted on AdaEurope-2014 conference. It describes how to in pure Ada-2012 application works with GUI, Database, Multimedia, Web, Network, Touch devices, Sensors and many others. And it much more easy than from C++,C# or Java
>
Lucretia
Jul 17, 2014, 9:00:59 PM7/17/14
to
On Thursday, 17 July 2014 22:37:10 UTC+1, leonid...@gmail.com wrote:
> It seems to me that there is no interest that Ada has become a widely used programming language. For example my article "Ada for desktop application" was not accepted on AdaEurope-2014 conference. It describes how to in pure Ada-2012 application works with GUI, Database, Multimedia, Web, Network, Touch devices, Sensors and many others. And it much more easy than from C++,C# or Java
Yeah, I'd interested too. As I'm working on the same kind of area. Maybe it's just the old beards who want to keep the language for embedded (military/space/vehicles), I dunno?
> It seems to me that there is no interest that Ada has become a widely used programming language. For example my article "Ada for desktop application" was not accepted on AdaEurope-2014 conference. It describes how to in pure Ada-2012 application works with GUI, Database, Multimedia, Web, Network, Touch devices, Sensors and many others. And it much more easy than from C++,C# or Java
Message has been deleted
Simon Wright
Jul 18, 2014, 2:53:26 AM7/18/14
to
Dennis Lee Bieber <wlf...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> Was it still called MACRO-11 on VAX/VMS? I thought that was the
> PDP-11 assembler.
MACRO-32.
> Was it still called MACRO-11 on VAX/VMS? I thought that was the
> PDP-11 assembler.
MACRO-32.
J-P. Rosen
Jul 18, 2014, 4:01:16 AM7/18/14
to
Le 17/07/2014 23:37, leonid...@gmail.com a �crit :
disinterest. There are many things the program committee has to consider
when deciding a conference's program, including limited slot numbers,
consistency of program, competing other papers, etc.
--
J-P. Rosen
Adalog
2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX
Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00
http://www.adalog.fr
> It seems to me that there is no interest that Ada has become a widely
> used programming language. For example my article "Ada for desktop
> application" was not accepted on AdaEurope-2014 conference. It
> describes how to in pure Ada-2012 application works with GUI,
> Database, Multimedia, Web, Network, Touch devices, Sensors and many
> others. And it much more easy than from C++,C# or Java
Please don't consider that your paper not being accepted is a sign of
> used programming language. For example my article "Ada for desktop
> application" was not accepted on AdaEurope-2014 conference. It
> describes how to in pure Ada-2012 application works with GUI,
> Database, Multimedia, Web, Network, Touch devices, Sensors and many
> others. And it much more easy than from C++,C# or Java
disinterest. There are many things the program committee has to consider
when deciding a conference's program, including limited slot numbers,
consistency of program, competing other papers, etc.
--
J-P. Rosen
Adalog
2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX
Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00
http://www.adalog.fr
leonid...@gmail.com
Jul 18, 2014, 7:09:19 AM7/18/14
to
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:25:17 PM UTC+3, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
>
> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
>
> clearly failed to become popular, at least compared
>
> to the C-family (C, C++, C#, ....)
>
>
>
> The question is why did this happen?
>
>
>
> My theory: C was used to develop Unix/Linux and
>
> Windows, and this made it easier for applications
>
> to be written in C/C++ since the interface to the OS
>
> was easier. VMS did not choose C (considered a huge
>
> blunder by many. They choose Bliss
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLISS instead! and we
>
> all know what happens to VMS.
>
>
>
> What is your theory on this? Was there another
>
> reason or set of reasons?
>
>
>
> Can we all blame this success of the C family of
>
> languages on Dennis Ritchie and Brian Kernighan
>
> brilliance and it being used for Unix?
>
>
>
> --Nasser
You can see all in my webpage http:/users1.jabry.com/adastudio/index.html
> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
>
> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
>
> clearly failed to become popular, at least compared
>
> to the C-family (C, C++, C#, ....)
>
>
>
> The question is why did this happen?
>
>
>
> My theory: C was used to develop Unix/Linux and
>
> Windows, and this made it easier for applications
>
> to be written in C/C++ since the interface to the OS
>
> was easier. VMS did not choose C (considered a huge
>
> blunder by many. They choose Bliss
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLISS instead! and we
>
> all know what happens to VMS.
>
>
>
> What is your theory on this? Was there another
>
> reason or set of reasons?
>
>
>
> Can we all blame this success of the C family of
>
> languages on Dennis Ritchie and Brian Kernighan
>
> brilliance and it being used for Unix?
>
>
>
> --Nasser
Jacob Sparre Andersen
Jul 18, 2014, 11:35:22 AM7/18/14
to
leonid...@gmail.com writes:
> It seems to me that there is no interest that Ada has become a widely
> used programming language. For example my article "Ada for desktop
> application" was not accepted on AdaEurope-2014 conference. It
> describes how to in pure Ada-2012 application works with GUI,
> Database, Multimedia, Web, Network, Touch devices, Sensors and many
> others. And it much more easy than from C++,C# or Java
It sounds like something that might be interesting as an industrial
> It seems to me that there is no interest that Ada has become a widely
> used programming language. For example my article "Ada for desktop
> application" was not accepted on AdaEurope-2014 conference. It
> describes how to in pure Ada-2012 application works with GUI,
> Database, Multimedia, Web, Network, Touch devices, Sensors and many
> others. And it much more easy than from C++,C# or Java
presentation. Did you submit it as a "regular paper"? The regular
papers are supposed to present new research rather than industrial
experiences.
You could try to do things the other way around, and (re)write your
presentation as a paper for Ada User Journal, and then try to get it
included as an industrial presentation for next year's conference in
Madrid.
Greetings,
Jacob
--
"I remember being impressed with Ada because you could write
an infinite loop without a faked up condition. The idea
being that in Ada the typical infinite loop would normally
be terminated by detonation." -- Larry Wall
isaa...@gmail.com
Jul 18, 2014, 2:08:46 PM7/18/14
to
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 5:25:17 AM UTC-7, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
>
> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
>
> clearly failed to become popular, at least compared
>
> to the C-family (C, C++, C#, ....)
>
> The question is why did this happen?
>
.
> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
>
> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
>
> clearly failed to become popular, at least compared
>
> to the C-family (C, C++, C#, ....)
>
> The question is why did this happen?
>
.
.
>
> What is your theory on this? Was there another
>
> reason or set of reasons?
There are simply some other strange intagible factors that happen to any language. Why did Python succeed but the much older Rexx/ObjectRexx not? I would say both are equally enjoyable to use and quite similar in many ways.
>
> What is your theory on this? Was there another
>
> reason or set of reasons?
C pre-dated Ada, no? Having a free compiler & toolchain included in most *NIX systems certainly didn't hurt either. I know in university environment the free tool in hand beats anything that you need money to buy. Starving grad students & research labs are always short on cash and that trumps anything else.
I remember learning Pascal, it was nice, but didn't think too much of it. The prejudice I see against it (and other similar languages) is that it is seen as a "learning" language, so it's not good enough for real work.
I had to learn C, I remember I hated it. I still dislike it, but not as much as C++ :-), it is not "fun" to program in. Then recently I had to pick up Delphi for my job and in comparison, what a breath of fresh air! It was way more fun and easy to program in. I spent time debugging algorithmic errors, not silly syntax stuff or some other oddball errors.
Then I did something really crazy and decided to pick up Ada, with the only thing I knew about it was "it was for military stuff". Only later found it descended from the Pascal heritage, it made sense that it looked very similar to Delphi and it was also fun.
But for someone like me who has the desire to learn a new language and even specifically Ada, there are several roadblocks, not the least of which is my colleagues thinking it is a "dead" language:
1) Where do I get a free compiler & toolchain? There are plenty of choices for C family, Java or whatever. Yes I found GNAT GPL, but it is not as clean an install like others and the quality varies. 2012 was ok, 2013 was sloppy, 2014 seems ok again. Free is important, my employers are not going to let me spend thousands of dollars to try another language when C has been "proven" to work.
2) GUI. Yeah sorry, these days for many things my end users expect a GUI and Ada doesn't really have it. GtkAda? Sure, but documentation & examples are lacking and often incorrect, plus Gtk is such a pain to use when compared to Windows stuff, Qt or even Java.
3) Supporting libraries. Say I need to work with TIFF files? There's many choices for C (libTIFF is common), they're always available for C. I had to work to find a half-baked option for Delphi, but I'm stuck when it comes to Ada. ImageMagick? Maybe. Okay, now what happens when I need Ada to access scanners, cameras, etc?
4) Embedded support: This should be the easiest, less need for external libraries, no need for GUI's and such ... but I find I have no way to compile Ada to embedded microncontrollers, especially ARM cores. (Yes, I know AdaCore has pay option for ARM, but when you have neither marketshare nor mindshare, it's impossible to convince people to spring $$$ on "unproven" tools & languages).
I would say the above gripes apply to many non-C languages.
gautier...@hotmail.com
Jul 18, 2014, 3:04:37 PM7/18/14
to
Le vendredi 18 juillet 2014 20:08:46 UTC+2, isaa...@gmail.com a écrit :
> 1) Where do I get a free compiler & toolchain? There are plenty of choices for C family, Java or whatever. Yes I found GNAT GPL, but it is not as clean an install like others and the quality varies. 2012 was ok, 2013 was sloppy, 2014 seems ok again. Free is important, my employers are not going to let me spend thousands of dollars to try another language when C has been "proven" to work.
You always have the choice of skipping a year if it doesn't work as you expect.
> 1) Where do I get a free compiler & toolchain? There are plenty of choices for C family, Java or whatever. Yes I found GNAT GPL, but it is not as clean an install like others and the quality varies. 2012 was ok, 2013 was sloppy, 2014 seems ok again. Free is important, my employers are not going to let me spend thousands of dollars to try another language when C has been "proven" to work.
I do so at my job (and for my job :-) )
> 2) GUI. Yeah sorry, these days for many things my end users expect a GUI and Ada doesn't really have it. GtkAda? Sure, but documentation & examples are lacking and often incorrect, plus Gtk is such a pain to use when compared to Windows stuff, Qt or even Java.
http://sf.net/projects/gnavi/
> 3) Supporting libraries. Say I need to work with TIFF files? There's many choices for C (libTIFF is common), they're always available for C. I had to work to find a half-baked option for Delphi, but I'm stuck when it comes to Ada. ImageMagick? Maybe.
Oh, no TIFF. TIFF has lots of subformats - if you want a specific one, contact me...
> Okay, now what happens when I need Ada to access scanners, cameras, etc?
_________________________
Gautier's Ada programming
http://gautiersblog.blogspot.com/search/label/Ada
NB: follow the above link for a valid e-mail address
Pascal Obry
Jul 19, 2014, 5:10:17 AM7/19/14
to
Le jeudi 17 juillet 2014 à 14:37 -0700, leonid...@gmail.com a
And as Jean-Pierre said not being accepted does not mean that there is
no interest.
--
Pascal Obry / Magny Les Hameaux (78)
The best way to travel is by means of imagination
http://v2p.fr.eu.org
http://www.obry.net
gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv-key F949BD3B
> It seems to me that there is no interest that Ada has become a widely
> used programming language. For example my article "Ada for desktop
> application" was not accepted on AdaEurope-2014 conference. It
> describes how to in pure Ada-2012 application works with GUI,
> Database, Multimedia, Web, Network, Touch devices, Sensors and many
> others. And it much more easy than from C++,C# or Java
I'd be interested too.
> used programming language. For example my article "Ada for desktop
> application" was not accepted on AdaEurope-2014 conference. It
> describes how to in pure Ada-2012 application works with GUI,
> Database, Multimedia, Web, Network, Touch devices, Sensors and many
> others. And it much more easy than from C++,C# or Java
And as Jean-Pierre said not being accepted does not mean that there is
no interest.
--
Pascal Obry / Magny Les Hameaux (78)
The best way to travel is by means of imagination
http://v2p.fr.eu.org
http://www.obry.net
gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv-key F949BD3B
jm.ta...@gmail.com
Jul 19, 2014, 8:17:51 AM7/19/14
to
What's the problem with pascal (and any other language)? what has been pointed before: The underlying system is C-like.
When ever you want to access to a system utility, you need to write a weird interface. If you use C, the interface is "natural".
I'm a Pascal Guy. After BASIC, UCSD Pascal was my first love. Since then I have used Turbo Pascal and Delphi, they were good and successful languages because they had a good framework, that is, binding to all and every system feature. Moreover for any new fabulous library that appeared, there was a community and ecosystem that programed a binding. Nevertheless they couldn't keep the pace. There were more and more libraries with complex structures (sound, network, mail, internet, video, graphics) that linking from C was trivial, but linking from pascal was a good effort.
So, no language but C has a chance? Right, no general purpose language has a chance.
The languages are COBOL from old days for business, Fortran for calculus from old days, and C/C++ for any other thing. There are new languages families: Java, its new and wonderful feature is "runeverywhere" (something in the old day's slow computers was a failure), Perl for dirty scripting (its being replaced), and finally PHP for web (oh my good!). And they inherited syntax from C, not from COBOL, or Fortran, and obviously not from Pascal. Pascal? What is Pascal?
There are other languages competing for those niches: Python, Ruby, C#, ASP and others. Trying to invade other's niches (Java and Python invaded web programming). But whenever they need to do something lowlevel or that needs intensive calculus that can't be let to interpreted languages, they make a library in C or C++ and interface it.
Why C became "The system's language"? Not sure. Pascal started as prove of concept and teaching language, not like a production language, so I'm not sure if there were other competitors. Beside this, C was for free in Unix, like BASIC in DOS, but much better than BASIC. By the way, once I read that AutoCAD started with Pascal, but replaced it because the compiler required changing floppy disks several times for every compilation.
What about Ada? Well it has the problems of any other general purpose language plus money and appalling lack of ecosystem. It looks like Ada never even made the effort of creating such ecosytem unless you were Boeing, Lookheed, or NASA.
Now I program mostly in Java and Python (and don't like too much). I'm starting a new project (commercial, no GPL) and considered other languages instead of Java: Delphi, Lazarus (freePascal similar to delphi) and Ada.
Ada was something I liked to try but...
*Gnat Pro, 10.000$ seat. No way. It looks like it's only for deep pockets. I'm not Boeing.
*Gnat FSF, sorry, I have problems with the debugger in Linux. Something without support that doesn't work installed off-the-shelf is not for me for this project now (Lazarus works like a charm).
*Janus. It could be for prize, I still have to evaluate it.
What deters me is the lack of ecosystem. I look for a Crypto Library, I can find in FreePascal libraries, or bindings to libssl. Sound? there is FreePascal or Delphi. Integrate browser? wysiwyg editor? There are Delphi/lazarus components. What you find in Ada is a library sometimes maintained by a person, but more worrying with a few users.
I'm afraid that I will have to build the whole thing almost from scratch. Beside I'm afraid that with the lack of people, customers and community behind, a product like Janus could be discontinued in a near future.
When ever you want to access to a system utility, you need to write a weird interface. If you use C, the interface is "natural".
I'm a Pascal Guy. After BASIC, UCSD Pascal was my first love. Since then I have used Turbo Pascal and Delphi, they were good and successful languages because they had a good framework, that is, binding to all and every system feature. Moreover for any new fabulous library that appeared, there was a community and ecosystem that programed a binding. Nevertheless they couldn't keep the pace. There were more and more libraries with complex structures (sound, network, mail, internet, video, graphics) that linking from C was trivial, but linking from pascal was a good effort.
So, no language but C has a chance? Right, no general purpose language has a chance.
The languages are COBOL from old days for business, Fortran for calculus from old days, and C/C++ for any other thing. There are new languages families: Java, its new and wonderful feature is "runeverywhere" (something in the old day's slow computers was a failure), Perl for dirty scripting (its being replaced), and finally PHP for web (oh my good!). And they inherited syntax from C, not from COBOL, or Fortran, and obviously not from Pascal. Pascal? What is Pascal?
There are other languages competing for those niches: Python, Ruby, C#, ASP and others. Trying to invade other's niches (Java and Python invaded web programming). But whenever they need to do something lowlevel or that needs intensive calculus that can't be let to interpreted languages, they make a library in C or C++ and interface it.
Why C became "The system's language"? Not sure. Pascal started as prove of concept and teaching language, not like a production language, so I'm not sure if there were other competitors. Beside this, C was for free in Unix, like BASIC in DOS, but much better than BASIC. By the way, once I read that AutoCAD started with Pascal, but replaced it because the compiler required changing floppy disks several times for every compilation.
What about Ada? Well it has the problems of any other general purpose language plus money and appalling lack of ecosystem. It looks like Ada never even made the effort of creating such ecosytem unless you were Boeing, Lookheed, or NASA.
Now I program mostly in Java and Python (and don't like too much). I'm starting a new project (commercial, no GPL) and considered other languages instead of Java: Delphi, Lazarus (freePascal similar to delphi) and Ada.
Ada was something I liked to try but...
*Gnat Pro, 10.000$ seat. No way. It looks like it's only for deep pockets. I'm not Boeing.
*Gnat FSF, sorry, I have problems with the debugger in Linux. Something without support that doesn't work installed off-the-shelf is not for me for this project now (Lazarus works like a charm).
*Janus. It could be for prize, I still have to evaluate it.
What deters me is the lack of ecosystem. I look for a Crypto Library, I can find in FreePascal libraries, or bindings to libssl. Sound? there is FreePascal or Delphi. Integrate browser? wysiwyg editor? There are Delphi/lazarus components. What you find in Ada is a library sometimes maintained by a person, but more worrying with a few users.
I'm afraid that I will have to build the whole thing almost from scratch. Beside I'm afraid that with the lack of people, customers and community behind, a product like Janus could be discontinued in a near future.
Message has been deleted
gvds...@gmail.com
Jul 19, 2014, 10:12:07 AM7/19/14
to
I think there is also another issue.
C, like Microsoft, has the benefit of that there is only *one*.
Linux, the kernel, has that benefit too. But there are *lots* of Linux distros.
There are also *lots* of alternatives for C, but none of them is the default.
If we could just pick one, the problem would be solved in a couple of years. But looking at the new generation of languages, there you see Rust, Go, D and Swift. Even at that level there is no cooperation or even a clear choice, but they are all doing roughly the same.
My "choice" for simplicity would be Oberon, because it solves *all* issues with C, without adding functionality. The problem with Ada is that it is obese and requires a big compiler, like C++.
C, like Microsoft, has the benefit of that there is only *one*.
Linux, the kernel, has that benefit too. But there are *lots* of Linux distros.
There are also *lots* of alternatives for C, but none of them is the default.
If we could just pick one, the problem would be solved in a couple of years. But looking at the new generation of languages, there you see Rust, Go, D and Swift. Even at that level there is no cooperation or even a clear choice, but they are all doing roughly the same.
My "choice" for simplicity would be Oberon, because it solves *all* issues with C, without adding functionality. The problem with Ada is that it is obese and requires a big compiler, like C++.
Simon Clubley
Jul 19, 2014, 10:26:12 AM7/19/14
to
On 2014-07-19, gvds...@gmail.com <gvds...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My "choice" for simplicity would be Oberon, because it solves *all* issues
> with C, without adding functionality. The problem with Ada is that it is obese
> and requires a big compiler, like C++.
You would need an Oberon compiler which supported all the platforms
>
> My "choice" for simplicity would be Oberon, because it solves *all* issues
> with C, without adding functionality. The problem with Ada is that it is obese
> and requires a big compiler, like C++.
and targets the C language library you wish to replace does before
that would be viable. That would actually be rather easier to achieve
with Oberon than Ada however.
I would also import some basic syntax/semantic elements from Ada into
Oberon as well.
I would also lose the uppercase keywords currently required in Oberon
as I think they detract from program readability instead of enhancing
it.
gvds...@gmail.com
Jul 19, 2014, 10:35:21 AM7/19/14
to
Oberon clearly has some issues, I agree with that.
But that is not the point. The point is that we don't want to cooperate and are unable to make a choice.
But that is not the point. The point is that we don't want to cooperate and are unable to make a choice.
Dan'l Miller
Jul 19, 2014, 10:56:09 AM7/19/14
to
On Saturday, July 19, 2014 9:12:07 AM UTC-5, gvds...@gmail.com wrote:
> I think there is also another issue.
> C, like Microsoft, has the benefit of that there is only *one*.
Apparently, you are not old enough to have programmed in C prior the the 1988 ANSI C. There was no agreement at all among the various widely-diverging flavors of C on nonUnix platforms prior to ANSI C 1988 (and then endorsed as ISO C 1990). Even on Unix, every Unix licensee had licensed a different era of Unix, hence getting a different Issue of C compiler. Issue 3 C was drastically different than Issue 4, which in turn was drastically different than Issue 5. IIRC, the Issue 5 to Issue 6 transition was right around the big SVR4/SunOS versus OSF1 Unix wars, which further fragmented a divergent Unix world until GNU GCC ended all of that debate by becoming the dominant C compiler.
> I think there is also another issue.
> C, like Microsoft, has the benefit of that there is only *one*.
Even today, there is *one* C as long as one programs in ANSI C 1988, not C1999 and definitely not C2011, because far less than 100% of C compilers support the C99 and C11 feature-set. For example, Microsoft has stated that they will *never* update their C compiler to be fully C99 or C11 compliant; Microsoft has stated that C is for legacy only and that new features of C++ will be only ones appearing, so switch to a C-like subset of modern C++ instead of expecting C99 or C11.
gvds...@gmail.com
Jul 19, 2014, 11:20:34 AM7/19/14
to
However I am sure that as long as we use C, bugs such as Heartbleed will enter the news on a massive scale.
Simon Clubley
Jul 19, 2014, 12:38:50 PM7/19/14
to
> Oberon clearly has some issues, I agree with that.
>
Actually, that sounded a bit more negative than I intended.
>
It should be clear from some of my previous postings that I also
think Oberon would make a good base for a C language replacement if
implemented correctly.
However, it would need some changes (and some additions from Ada)
to make the most of the opportunity to replace C.
> But that is not the point. The point is that we don't want to cooperate and
> are unable to make a choice.
the different experiences of the various language designers shaping
what they think is required by a C language replacement.
Georg Bauhaus
Jul 19, 2014, 1:11:43 PM7/19/14
to
On 19/07/14 18:38, Simon Clubley wrote:
> However, it would need some changes (and some additions from Ada)
> to make the most of the opportunity to replace C.
All of this has been tried. However, those who could make
> However, it would need some changes (and some additions from Ada)
> to make the most of the opportunity to replace C.
such a language a success are either some big semi-political
organization---and that has failed to replace C in the past.
Or it's those who are competitors in a market economy and,
therefore, unable to cooperate by definition, or at least not
in bright sunlight.
Those who have understood this simple conclusion (i.e., non-cooperation)
have started leveraging this global inability through individually
monetizing the linguistically caused state of the art: as long as
the core of the most widely used language infrastructure in embedded
system stays built on top of C, the misery that it necessarily causes
at the fingertips of ordinary programmers will need constant mending.
Which is *payed* *work*! It is therefore more important to downplay
the technical issue, or, if that course isn't taken, make sure that
every improvement (along a different course) brings with it
a sufficient supply of new problems.
Per Sandberg
Jul 19, 2014, 1:56:33 PM7/19/14
to
Simple:
Because "{" and "}" is much cooler then "begin" and "end", and to be
cool is in much more important the to be right.
;)
/persan
On 16.07.2014 14:25, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>
> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
> clearly failed to become popular, at least compared
> to the C-family (C, C++, C#, ....)
>
> The question is why did this happen?
>
> My theory: C was used to develop Unix/Linux and
> Windows, and this made it easier for applications
> to be written in C/C++ since the interface to the OS
> was easier. VMS did not choose C (considered a huge
> blunder by many. They choose Bliss
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLISS instead! and we
> all know what happens to VMS.
>
> Windows, and this made it easier for applications
> to be written in C/C++ since the interface to the OS
> was easier. VMS did not choose C (considered a huge
> blunder by many. They choose Bliss
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLISS instead! and we
> all know what happens to VMS.
>
> What is your theory on this? Was there another
> reason or set of reasons?
>
> reason or set of reasons?
>
pinc...@gmail.com
Jul 20, 2014, 3:40:44 PM7/20/14
to
I would guess that Ada/Pascal, et al weren't popular because they weren't backed by corporations like C was.
Also, easy to read must equal not powerful.
The main problem I'm seeing with Ada is support and community. There isn't a lot of it, and a lot of the resources available are out of date by a few years (software like gnavi and visual ada studio).
Every thing else is either really expensive, or not worth having (like the Pro version of GNAT and ObjectAda).
As far as the beard length to programming prowess...that wouldn't work for me...
a beard on a woman...:p
Also, easy to read must equal not powerful.
The main problem I'm seeing with Ada is support and community. There isn't a lot of it, and a lot of the resources available are out of date by a few years (software like gnavi and visual ada studio).
Every thing else is either really expensive, or not worth having (like the Pro version of GNAT and ObjectAda).
As far as the beard length to programming prowess...that wouldn't work for me...
a beard on a woman...:p
Shark8
Jul 20, 2014, 6:30:14 PM7/20/14
to
On 20-Jul-14 13:40, pinc...@gmail.com wrote:
> I would guess that Ada/Pascal, et al weren't popular because they
> weren't backed by corporations like C was.
Probably has something to do with it; but then again there /are/ some
> I would guess that Ada/Pascal, et al weren't popular because they
> weren't backed by corporations like C was.
corporations that *do* [seem] to back Ada: Boeing springs immediately
to mind.
> Also, easy to read must equal not powerful.
> The main problem I'm seeing with Ada is support and community.
> There isn't a lot of it, and a lot of the resources available are
> out of date by a few years (software like gnavi and visual ada
> studio).
was updated in 2014, so not so much "out of date" (features are another
matter, I haven't used it [yet] so can't say one way or another).
Randy has CLAW ( http://www.rrsoftware.com/html/prodinf/claw/claw.htm )
for building windows applications, I haven't used it either but am
tempted to buy in.
> Every thing else is either really expensive, or not worth having
> (like the Pro version of GNAT and ObjectAda).
great; there's several projects going about in that direction. Though I
don't know how well any of them except mine are going along. (Mine isn't
going well, I'm still designing. [That and I've been tinkering w/
writing more than programming of late.])
gautier...@hotmail.com
Jul 20, 2014, 6:51:43 PM7/20/14
to
Le lundi 21 juillet 2014 00:30:14 UTC+2, Shark8 a écrit :
> Gnavi /does/ seem to be somewhat dead
Really ? One release this year so far (at least a 2nd one planned), one last year, six in 2012...
> Gnavi /does/ seem to be somewhat dead
Check here: http://sf.net/projects/gnavi/
G.
Shark8
Jul 20, 2014, 7:11:54 PM7/20/14
to
On 20-Jul-14 16:51, gautier...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Le lundi 21 juillet 2014 00:30:14 UTC+2, Shark8 a �crit :
I went to http://www.gnavi.org/ and it seems like the last update
[there] was circa 2004.
> Le lundi 21 juillet 2014 00:30:14 UTC+2, Shark8 a �crit :
>
>> Gnavi /does/ seem to be somewhat dead
>
> Really ? One release this year so far (at least a 2nd one planned), one last year, six in 2012...
>
> Check here: http://sf.net/projects/gnavi/
>
> G.
>
Ah, I see...
>> Gnavi /does/ seem to be somewhat dead
>
> Really ? One release this year so far (at least a 2nd one planned), one last year, six in 2012...
>
> Check here: http://sf.net/projects/gnavi/
>
> G.
>
I went to http://www.gnavi.org/ and it seems like the last update
[there] was circa 2004.
Dan'l Miller
Jul 20, 2014, 7:18:19 PM7/20/14
to
Gnavi deserves to be more widely used than it is.
Gnavi deserves to have a bigger community than it has.
Medium-term, Gnavi & its GNATCOM deserve to be extended to Windows Runtime for Microsoft Store apps.
Long-term, Gnavi deserve to be extended to nonMicrosoft GUIs. Imagine an Ada GUI framework that is Ada's superior competitor to C++'s wxWidgets. Other than Gnavi & wxWidgets, none of the other GUI frameworks (e.g., Qt) call the OS's native widgets, but rather paint visually-similar emulations thereof.
Dan'l Miller
Jul 20, 2014, 7:21:38 PM7/20/14
to
On Sunday, July 20, 2014 6:11:54 PM UTC-5, Shark8 wrote:
> On 20-Jul-14 16:51, gautier wrote:
> > Le lundi 21 juillet 2014 00:30:14 UTC+2, Shark8 a �crit :
> > Le lundi 21 juillet 2014 00:30:14 UTC+2, Shark8 a �crit :
> Ah, I see...
> I went to http://www.gnavi.org/ and it seems like the last update
> [there] was circa 2004.
Gnavi does an especially bad job with PR. Gnavi really needs to update their musty-crusty old website at gnavi.org with modernized content. Go here instead for activity that is 10 years more recent: http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnavi
> I went to http://www.gnavi.org/ and it seems like the last update
> [there] was circa 2004.
Shark8
Jul 20, 2014, 9:16:58 PM7/20/14
to
On 20-Jul-14 17:18, Dan'l Miller wrote:
> Imagine an Ada GUI framework that is Ada's superior competitor to C++'s wxWidgets.
I have; I'd kinda liked to have done something w/ my OpenGL binding --
> Imagine an Ada GUI framework that is Ada's superior competitor to C++'s wxWidgets.
but I ran out of steam/motivation for that project.
> Other than Gnavi & wxWidgets, none of the other GUI frameworks (e.g., Qt) call the
> OS's native widgets, but rather paint visually-similar emulations thereof.
have to repaint themselves and have a vast lag compared to true-native
buttons. (The best native OS GUI-framework I've used, IMO, is Delphi's VCL.)
Shark8
Jul 20, 2014, 9:42:11 PM7/20/14
to
5-Apr-2014.exe) as infected... is this a false-positive, or did it
infect sourceforge?
Nasser M. Abbasi
Jul 21, 2014, 12:57:11 AM7/21/14
to
On 7/20/2014 8:42 PM, Shark8 wrote:
>>
>> Gnavi does an especially bad job with PR. Gnavi really needs to
>> update their musty-crusty old website at gnavi.org with modernized
>> content. Go here instead for activity that is 10 years more
>> recent: http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnavi
>>
>
> My virus scanner is flagging the setup there (GWindows Setup
> 5-Apr-2014.exe) as infected... is this a false-positive, or did it
> infect sourceforge?
>
I've took the chance and downloaded it and scanned it using the best
>>
>> Gnavi does an especially bad job with PR. Gnavi really needs to
>> update their musty-crusty old website at gnavi.org with modernized
>> content. Go here instead for activity that is 10 years more
>> recent: http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnavi
>>
>
> My virus scanner is flagging the setup there (GWindows Setup
> 5-Apr-2014.exe) as infected... is this a false-positive, or did it
> infect sourceforge?
>
anti-virus software out there (ESET smart security 7). No problem
shows up. Clean file.
7/20/2014 11:54:49 PM GWindows Setup 5-Apr-2014.exe
--Nasser
Shark8
Jul 21, 2014, 2:51:46 AM7/21/14
to
On 20-Jul-14 22:57, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>
>
> I've took the chance and downloaded it and scanned it using the best
> anti-virus software out there (ESET smart security 7). No problem
> shows up. Clean file.
>
> 7/20/2014 11:54:49 PM GWindows Setup 5-Apr-2014.exe
>
> --Nasser
Ah, thank you.
>
>
> I've took the chance and downloaded it and scanned it using the best
> anti-virus software out there (ESET smart security 7). No problem
> shows up. Clean file.
>
> 7/20/2014 11:54:49 PM GWindows Setup 5-Apr-2014.exe
>
> --Nasser
I'll give it a try then.
pinc...@gmail.com
Jul 21, 2014, 2:01:26 PM7/21/14
to
granted, I still have a long ways to go before I get proficient enough, but it's fascinating.
btw, thank you for the link to the updated file.
Does anyone know or have tried Visual Ada Developer studio?
isaa...@gmail.com
Jul 21, 2014, 7:09:42 PM7/21/14
to
On Friday, July 18, 2014 12:04:37 PM UTC-7, gautier...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Le vendredi 18 juillet 2014 20:08:46 UTC+2, isaa...@gmail.com a écrit :
...
> Le vendredi 18 juillet 2014 20:08:46 UTC+2, isaa...@gmail.com a écrit :
> > 2) GUI. Yeah sorry, these days for many things my end users expect a GUI and Ada doesn't really have it. GtkAda? Sure, but documentation & examples are lacking and often incorrect, plus Gtk is such a pain to use when compared to Windows stuff, Qt or even Java.
>
> If you use Windows, perhaps you'll be interested at this:
>
> http://sf.net/projects/gnavi/
>
Oh yes, I found that. Also AdaStudio. However, they are sorely deficient. It took quite a while just to get AdaStudio as many of the links were broken. As for GNAVI, I have the April-2014 download, but since it lacked any correct documentation on how to install, it took me quite a while to get going.
>
> If you use Windows, perhaps you'll be interested at this:
>
> http://sf.net/projects/gnavi/
>
(Perhaps there is some peculiarity to my set up, but none of my other dev tools seem to have issue installing & running properly). This is starting with what appears to be a working GNAT installation.
Once I got it up and running, the interface is, well, non-intuitive, which does not help so much without good documentation. (If you have not noticed, the help is one line saying it will be available soon). I even managed to muddle through that, but I cannot directly test anything as build doesn't work. I'm sure it's just some path issue or something, but keep in mind I'm starting from a working GNAT install and since I am able to run GNAVI, the environment was obviously good enough to build all that stuff during the install.
This is what I have to jump through even though I am very motivated to work with Ada. Imagine someone is half-heartedly poking around with it.
I'm not "blaming" anyone, there is no Sun/Oracle backing Ada to kick start this thing (but then, neither did Python), that's just the state of matters and has been since the start with ObjectPascal, Oberon, etc. and it's a big hurdle for new users.
Randy Brukardt
Jul 21, 2014, 8:01:20 PM7/21/14
to
"Dan'l Miller" <opt...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6973f703-a6d8-4ba2...@googlegroups.com...
...
> There actually does exist a GUI library written entirely in Ada for Ada:
> Gnavi.
You misspelled "Claw". ;-) GNavi exists mainly because the authors didn't
like our design for Claw. Which has been a long-standing problem with Ada --
too many choices never quite finished, rather than one library that most
people use and extend.
Randy.
news:6973f703-a6d8-4ba2...@googlegroups.com...
...
> There actually does exist a GUI library written entirely in Ada for Ada:
> Gnavi.
You misspelled "Claw". ;-) GNavi exists mainly because the authors didn't
like our design for Claw. Which has been a long-standing problem with Ada --
too many choices never quite finished, rather than one library that most
people use and extend.
Randy.
pinc...@gmail.com
Jul 21, 2014, 8:59:11 PM7/21/14
to
the resources are there, but it's so spotty that it's a miracle when you do find something up to date.
I've never been ablt to get Ada Studio running past the startup dialog, so I abandoned it.
gnavi was easier to set up, though with the msys/minggw.
Dan'l Miller
Jul 22, 2014, 10:41:10 AM7/22/14
to
On Monday, July 21, 2014 7:01:20 PM UTC-5, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Dan'l Miller" wrote in message:
Conversely, point well taken that Claw doesn't get enough exposure either. The more the merrier to reach critical mass for Ada. Ada in its current state needs to advertise its accomplishments (e.g., libraries available written in Ada; titles of apps written in Ada; well-maintained actively-maintained thick Ada bindings to foreign libraries). Ada in its future Ada202X state needs to facilitate more accomplishments easier (e.g., better interlanguage Conventions, such as to Lua, Python, Perl, Swift, Go, the low-hanging fruit in C++; increased usage of pre- & post-conditions for more declarative coding; aspect-oriented programming, such as merging ASIS into the compiler to make ASIS available at compile-time).
> "Dan'l Miller" wrote in message:
> > There actually does exist a GUI library written entirely in Ada for Ada:
> > Gnavi.
>
> You misspelled "Claw". ;-) GNavi exists mainly because the authors didn't
> like our design for Claw. Which has been a long-standing problem with Ada --
> too many choices never quite finished, rather than one library that most
> people use and extend.
Randy, you make it sound as though Gnavi is a fork of Claw or some other direct derivative work, by making the reference to misspelling (a rose by any other name is just a sweet). Perhaps some of the developers of Gnavi were first Claw users, but it seems they simply designed a competitor rather than a derivative work. Or was now-EULA-licensed Claw open source at one point in the past?
> > Gnavi.
>
> You misspelled "Claw". ;-) GNavi exists mainly because the authors didn't
> like our design for Claw. Which has been a long-standing problem with Ada --
> too many choices never quite finished, rather than one library that most
> people use and extend.
Conversely, point well taken that Claw doesn't get enough exposure either. The more the merrier to reach critical mass for Ada. Ada in its current state needs to advertise its accomplishments (e.g., libraries available written in Ada; titles of apps written in Ada; well-maintained actively-maintained thick Ada bindings to foreign libraries). Ada in its future Ada202X state needs to facilitate more accomplishments easier (e.g., better interlanguage Conventions, such as to Lua, Python, Perl, Swift, Go, the low-hanging fruit in C++; increased usage of pre- & post-conditions for more declarative coding; aspect-oriented programming, such as merging ASIS into the compiler to make ASIS available at compile-time).
Randy Brukardt
Jul 22, 2014, 5:46:20 PM7/22/14
to
"Dan'l Miller" <opt...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5d9cd056-b36b-4448...@googlegroups.com...
>On Monday, July 21, 2014 7:01:20 PM UTC-5, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>> "Dan'l Miller" wrote in message:
>> > There actually does exist a GUI library written entirely in Ada for
>> > Ada:
>> > Gnavi.
>>
>> You misspelled "Claw". ;-) GNavi exists mainly because the authors didn't
>> like our design for Claw. Which has been a long-standing problem with
>> Ada --
>> too many choices never quite finished, rather than one library that most
>> people use and extend.
>
>Randy, you make it sound as though Gnavi is a fork of Claw or some other
>direct derivative work, by making the reference to misspelling (a rose by
>any
>other name is just a sweet).
It's derivative in that it took the ideas that we had pioneered in Claw and
>> "Dan'l Miller" wrote in message:
>> > There actually does exist a GUI library written entirely in Ada for
>> > Ada:
>> > Gnavi.
>>
>> You misspelled "Claw". ;-) GNavi exists mainly because the authors didn't
>> like our design for Claw. Which has been a long-standing problem with
>> Ada --
>> too many choices never quite finished, rather than one library that most
>> people use and extend.
>
>Randy, you make it sound as though Gnavi is a fork of Claw or some other
>direct derivative work, by making the reference to misspelling (a rose by
>any
>other name is just a sweet).
reimplemented them. I didn't mean to imply that any of the actual code was
used. Being first, we had the fun of debugging compilers (early Ada 95
compilers were not up to the task when we started, particularly with
finalization), and to a lesser extent, figuring out what doesn't work.
> Perhaps some of the developers of Gnavi were
>first Claw users, but it seems they simply designed a competitor rather
>than a
>derivative work.
>
>
> Or was now-EULA-licensed Claw open source at one point in the past?
That's not as obvious as it should be, mainly because I couldn't find the
appropriate wording to put into the packaging. I planned to do that in the
next release that's never happened.
The plan always was to open source the libraries (but not the tools). We
didn't do it right away because it wasn't clear whether we had the right
model, and we didn't want a lot of dependence on mistakes until we had more
evidence (that is, programs using it) one way or another. (There also were
the requirements of our ATIP/P contract, which needed be cleared before
giving away anything.) Problems with early compilers pushed that back a
number of years which effectively wrecked the plan. I had originally hoped
to have what amounted to a standard Ada library for Windows, such that
people could simply assume it is there and do cool stuff on top of it. That
of course never happened in any sense.
At least a few parts of Claw ended up in the Ada standard: Ada.Directories
and the various children of Ada.Calendar existed in some form in Claw
(because these rather basic capabilities were missing from Ada 95), and the
Claw versions formed the basis for the packages in the Standard (especially
for Ada.Directories, which started as a copy of Claw.Directories with
appropriate substitutions ["Claw" -> "Ada", etc.]).
Randy.
Alessandro Ogheri
May 26, 2021, 8:49:09 AM5/26/21
to
Il giorno mercoledì 16 luglio 2014 alle 22:52:00 UTC+2 Georg Bauhaus ha scritto:
> On 16.07.14 19:47, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 10:40:50 AM UTC-7, jo...@peppermind.com wrote:
> >
> >> 10. Jean David Ichbiah apparently did not have a long beard - it has been observed that only programming languages whose inventor has a long beard become truly popular, although nobody knows why.
> >
> > Length is not a factor. Judging from a quick Google search, James Gosling's and Bjarne Stroustrup's beards are well-trimmed, not long. But Jean Ichbiah didn't have a beard at all.
> Anders Hejlsberg (Turbo Pascal -> C#) and Martin Odersky
> (Modula-17 -> Scala) have meanwhile spoiled the correlation.
>
> Grace_Hopper, Jean E Sammet, and Barbara Liskov also
> also challenge the legend of beards, I think.
Grace Hopper had a beard in fact and she worked for some time with Barnum Circus
She performed an act of cycling on an unicycle as bearded lady while coding in C on a terminal all at the same time...
> On 16.07.14 19:47, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 10:40:50 AM UTC-7, jo...@peppermind.com wrote:
> >
> >> 10. Jean David Ichbiah apparently did not have a long beard - it has been observed that only programming languages whose inventor has a long beard become truly popular, although nobody knows why.
> >
> > Length is not a factor. Judging from a quick Google search, James Gosling's and Bjarne Stroustrup's beards are well-trimmed, not long. But Jean Ichbiah didn't have a beard at all.
> Anders Hejlsberg (Turbo Pascal -> C#) and Martin Odersky
> (Modula-17 -> Scala) have meanwhile spoiled the correlation.
>
> Grace_Hopper, Jean E Sammet, and Barbara Liskov also
> also challenge the legend of beards, I think.
Grace Hopper had a beard in fact and she worked for some time with Barnum Circus
She performed an act of cycling on an unicycle as bearded lady while coding in C on a terminal all at the same time...
Robin Vowels
May 27, 2021, 2:53:19 AM5/27/21
to
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 at 10:25:17 PM UTC+10, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
> clearly failed to become popular,
.
> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
> clearly failed to become popular,
Pascal and Algol 60 did not have string handling.
Algol 60 did not have a defined I/O.
I/O in Pascal was flawed.
.
> at least compared
> to the C-family (C, C++, C#, ....)
>
> The question is why did this happen?
>
> My theory: C was used to develop Unix/Linux and
> Windows, and this made it easier for applications
> to be written in C/C++ since the interface to the OS
> was easier.
.
> to the C-family (C, C++, C#, ....)
>
> The question is why did this happen?
>
> My theory: C was used to develop Unix/Linux and
> Windows, and this made it easier for applications
> to be written in C/C++ since the interface to the OS
> was easier.
I do not think that this has anything to with it at all.
ldries46
May 27, 2021, 3:55:42 AM5/27/21
to Robin Vowels
Op 27-5-2021 om 8:53 schreef Robin Vowels:
mathematical proces in such a way that you could not fail in the way you
used that proces. That explained the lack of communicating with the
outside world.
But that made it simple to use it as a programming language. My first
sniff with programming was in 1966 on an Electrologica X8 which used
Algol 60 with its own set of I/O functions.
Seen the fact that Algol 60 was much earlier as Pascal I would not speak
of the Pascal-family but the Algol 60-family
For people interested there is on internet the Algol Reprt available.
> On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 at 10:25:17 PM UTC+10, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
>> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
>> clearly failed to become popular,
> .
> Pascal and Algol 60 did not have string handling.
> Algol 60 did not have a defined I/O.
Algol 60 wasn't a programming language but a method of describing a
>> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
>> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
>> clearly failed to become popular,
> .
> Pascal and Algol 60 did not have string handling.
> Algol 60 did not have a defined I/O.
mathematical proces in such a way that you could not fail in the way you
used that proces. That explained the lack of communicating with the
outside world.
But that made it simple to use it as a programming language. My first
sniff with programming was in 1966 on an Electrologica X8 which used
Algol 60 with its own set of I/O functions.
Seen the fact that Algol 60 was much earlier as Pascal I would not speak
of the Pascal-family but the Algol 60-family
For people interested there is on internet the Algol Reprt available.
Paul Rubin
May 27, 2021, 12:00:18 PM5/27/21
to
> <?> Just curious -- do you mean the I/O was all by linked in
> function/subroutines rather than being keywords in the language?
Yeah, something like that. But there were successful Algol 60
implementations, including on Burroughs and Univac mainframes.
C. A. R. Hoare supposedly called Algol 60 "a language so far ahead of
its time, that it was not only an improvement on its predecessors, but
also on nearly all its successors.
>>I/O in Pascal was flawed.
> Well... It probably worked quite well in the original OS...
It wasn't just the I/O:
http://doc.cat-v.org/bell_labs/why_pascal/
Borland Turbo Pascal was very popular and apparently practical, though.
I never used it but I have the impression that it (like most deployed
Pascal implementations) somehow supplied workarounds to the limitations
described in the paper above.
These were interesting:
* Things Turbo Pascal is Smaller Than:
https://prog21.dadgum.com/116.html
* Personal History of compilation speed part 2 (scroll down for the
part about Turbo Pascal):
https://prog21.dadgum.com/47.html
The binary of Turbo Pascal was eventually released for no cost download,
but apparently the source code was never released. That is
disappointing based on how cool the above articles make it sound.
> function/subroutines rather than being keywords in the language?
Yeah, something like that. But there were successful Algol 60
implementations, including on Burroughs and Univac mainframes.
C. A. R. Hoare supposedly called Algol 60 "a language so far ahead of
its time, that it was not only an improvement on its predecessors, but
also on nearly all its successors.
>>I/O in Pascal was flawed.
It wasn't just the I/O:
http://doc.cat-v.org/bell_labs/why_pascal/
Borland Turbo Pascal was very popular and apparently practical, though.
I never used it but I have the impression that it (like most deployed
Pascal implementations) somehow supplied workarounds to the limitations
described in the paper above.
These were interesting:
* Things Turbo Pascal is Smaller Than:
https://prog21.dadgum.com/116.html
* Personal History of compilation speed part 2 (scroll down for the
part about Turbo Pascal):
https://prog21.dadgum.com/47.html
The binary of Turbo Pascal was eventually released for no cost download,
but apparently the source code was never released. That is
disappointing based on how cool the above articles make it sound.
Robin Vowels
May 27, 2021, 12:45:08 PM5/27/21
to
On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 5:55:42 PM UTC+10, ldries46 wrote:
> Op 27-5-2021 om 8:53 schreef Robin Vowels:
> > On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 at 10:25:17 PM UTC+10, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> >> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
> >> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
> >> clearly failed to become popular,
> > .
> > Pascal and Algol 60 did not have string handling.
> > Algol 60 did not have a defined I/O.
.
> Algol 60 wasn't a programming language
.
> Op 27-5-2021 om 8:53 schreef Robin Vowels:
> > On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 at 10:25:17 PM UTC+10, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> >> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
> >> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
> >> clearly failed to become popular,
> > .
> > Pascal and Algol 60 did not have string handling.
> > Algol 60 did not have a defined I/O.
.
> Algol 60 wasn't a programming language
FALSE. ALGOL 58, the predecessor of ALGOL 60, was designed as a
programming language.
.
Robin Vowels
May 27, 2021, 12:49:28 PM5/27/21
to
On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 2:00:18 AM UTC+10, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Dennis Lee Bieber <wlf...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >>Algol 60 did not have a defined I/O.
> > <?> Just curious -- do you mean the I/O was all by linked in
> > function/subroutines rather than being keywords in the language?
>
> Yeah, something like that. But there were successful Algol 60
> implementations, including on Burroughs and Univac mainframes.
> C. A. R. Hoare supposedly called Algol 60 "a language so far ahead of
> its time, that it was not only an improvement on its predecessors, but
> also on nearly all its successors.
> >>I/O in Pascal was flawed.
.
> > Well... It probably worked quite well in the original OS...
.
> Dennis Lee Bieber <wlf...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >>Algol 60 did not have a defined I/O.
> > <?> Just curious -- do you mean the I/O was all by linked in
> > function/subroutines rather than being keywords in the language?
>
> Yeah, something like that. But there were successful Algol 60
> implementations, including on Burroughs and Univac mainframes.
> C. A. R. Hoare supposedly called Algol 60 "a language so far ahead of
> its time, that it was not only an improvement on its predecessors, but
> also on nearly all its successors.
> >>I/O in Pascal was flawed.
.
> > Well... It probably worked quite well in the original OS...
But it didn't. That's the point. You couldn't write general algorithms in it.
Wilson
May 27, 2021, 7:42:21 PM5/27/21
to
organizations (including universities) used the PDP 11 series of
computers because they were cheap hardware.
Their OS for the PDP 11 on the other hand cost thousands of dollars per
computer whereas C and UNIX were free. This was a bargain most owners
found irresistibly. Many schools made UNIX and C their standard
educational language. This in turn generated graduates who only knew C
putting pressure on employers to use C. Alas, it quickly became was a
self feeding runaway success.
In short, a free lunch is hard to turn down no matter what comes with it.
John Perry
May 27, 2021, 8:34:08 PM5/27/21
to
On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 11:00:18 AM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Dennis Lee Bieber <wlf...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >>I/O in Pascal was flawed.
> > Well... It probably worked quite well in the original OS...
>
> It wasn't just the I/O:
>
> http://doc.cat-v.org/bell_labs/why_pascal/
>
> Borland Turbo Pascal was very popular and apparently practical, though.
> I never used it but I have the impression that it (like most deployed
> Pascal implementations) somehow supplied workarounds to the limitations
> described in the paper above.
I used Turbo Pascal in college 40 years ago, and yes! it did supply workarounds. Later I realized they looked a lot like features of Modula-2 (also by Wirth) and of Ada. Wikipedia tells me (And Therefore It Is True (TM) ;-)) that some of them come from UCSD Pascal.
> Dennis Lee Bieber <wlf...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >>I/O in Pascal was flawed.
> > Well... It probably worked quite well in the original OS...
>
> It wasn't just the I/O:
>
> http://doc.cat-v.org/bell_labs/why_pascal/
>
> Borland Turbo Pascal was very popular and apparently practical, though.
> I never used it but I have the impression that it (like most deployed
> Pascal implementations) somehow supplied workarounds to the limitations
> described in the paper above.
This next paragraph is from memory, which may be corrupted, and I may have misunderstood it first, so don't take it too seriously, but: people who paid attention to what Wirth said and wrote about compiler design were able to produce small and fast compilers. Somewhere you can find a report written by one of Wirth's students about how they tried to modify one of their compilers to use a tree instead of a fixed-size array with linear search for the symbol table. Everyone except Wirth was sure that the tree would be both better and more useful, and everyone except Wirth turned out to be wrong. As I say, if it interests anyone I'm sure an online search will find it (but it might not be trivial, which is why I'm not doing it now myself).
> The binary of Turbo Pascal was eventually released for no cost download,
> but apparently the source code was never released. That is
> disappointing based on how cool the above articles make it sound.
regards
john perry
ldries46
May 28, 2021, 3:22:16 AM5/28/21
to Robin Vowels
Op 27-5-2021 om 18:45 schreef Robin Vowels:
primarily to be a computer language and not a mathematical language.
> On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 5:55:42 PM UTC+10, ldries46 wrote:
>> Op 27-5-2021 om 8:53 schreef Robin Vowels:
>>> On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 at 10:25:17 PM UTC+10, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>>>> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
>>>> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
>>>> clearly failed to become popular,
>>> .
>>> Pascal and Algol 60 did not have string handling.
>>> Algol 60 did not have a defined I/O.
> .
>> Algol 60 wasn't a programming language
> .
> FALSE. ALGOL 58, the predecessor of ALGOL 60, was designed as a
> programming language.
Read the Algol reort then you can see that its intention was not
>> Op 27-5-2021 om 8:53 schreef Robin Vowels:
>>> On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 at 10:25:17 PM UTC+10, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
>>>> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
>>>> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
>>>> clearly failed to become popular,
>>> .
>>> Pascal and Algol 60 did not have string handling.
>>> Algol 60 did not have a defined I/O.
> .
>> Algol 60 wasn't a programming language
> .
> FALSE. ALGOL 58, the predecessor of ALGOL 60, was designed as a
> programming language.
primarily to be a computer language and not a mathematical language.
Shark8
May 28, 2021, 8:37:49 AM5/28/21
to
On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 6:34:08 PM UTC-6, john wrote:
> On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 11:00:18 AM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote:
> On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 11:00:18 AM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote:
> In order to find the optimal cost/benefit ratio, Wirth used a highly intuitive metric, the origin of which is unknown to me but that may very well be Wirth’s own invention. He used the compiler’s self-compilation speed as a measure of the compiler’s quality. Considering that Wirth’s compilers were written in the languages they compiled, and that compilers are substantial and non-trivial pieces of software in their own right, this introduced a highly practical benchmark that directly contested a compiler's complexity against its performance. Under the self compilation speed benchmark, only those optimizations were allowed to be incorporated into a compiler that accelerated it by so much that the intrinsic cost of the new code addition was fully compensated.
>
> And true to his quest for simplicity, Wirth continuously kept improving his compilers according to this metric, even if this meant throwing away a perfectly workable, albeit more complex solution. I still vividly remember the day that Wirth decided to replace the elegant data structure used in the compiler’s symbol table handler by a mundane linear list. In the original compiler, the objects in the symbol table had been sorted in a tree data structure (in identifier lexical order) for fast access, with a separate linear list representing their declaration order. One day Wirth decided that there really weren’t enough objects in a typical scope to make the sorted tree cost-effective. All of us Ph.D. students were horrified: it had taken time to implement the sorted tree, the solution was elegant, and it worked well – so why would one want to throw it away and replace it by something simpler, and even worse, something as prosaic as a linear list? But of course, Wirth was right, and the simplified compiler was both smaller and faster than its predecessor.
John Perry
May 28, 2021, 9:07:50 AM5/28/21
to
On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 7:37:49 AM UTC-5, Shark8 wrote:
> That story comes from the paper "Oberon: The Overlooked Jewel" — https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Oberon-%E2%80%93-The-Overlooked-Jewel-1-Oberon-%E2%80%93-The-Jewel-Franz/9a7870c543c19eb4f46fdfbdcfb92d33ae2bf810 —
>
> > In order to find the optimal cost/benefit ratio, Wirth used a highly intuitive metric, the origin of which is unknown to me but that may very well be Wirth’s own invention. He used the compiler’s self-compilation speed as a measure of the compiler’s quality.
Yes, that's it! and alas, I did slightly misremember it.
> That story comes from the paper "Oberon: The Overlooked Jewel" — https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Oberon-%E2%80%93-The-Overlooked-Jewel-1-Oberon-%E2%80%93-The-Jewel-Franz/9a7870c543c19eb4f46fdfbdcfb92d33ae2bf810 —
>
> > In order to find the optimal cost/benefit ratio, Wirth used a highly intuitive metric, the origin of which is unknown to me but that may very well be Wirth’s own invention. He used the compiler’s self-compilation speed as a measure of the compiler’s quality.
thank you
john perry
Dmitry A. Kazakov
May 28, 2021, 9:28:52 AM5/28/21
to
"Syntax error in expression" with, God forbid, no column number.
Otherwise yes, it was pretty fast, much faster than MS-DOS C/C++
compilers of the time, Borland's own C++ including.
--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
Robin Vowels
May 28, 2021, 9:59:18 AM5/28/21
to
On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 5:22:16 PM UTC+10, ldries46 wrote:
> Op 27-5-2021 om 18:45 schreef Robin Vowels:
> > On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 5:55:42 PM UTC+10, ldries46 wrote:
> >> Op 27-5-2021 om 8:53 schreef Robin Vowels:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 at 10:25:17 PM UTC+10, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> >>>> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
> >>>> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
> >>>> clearly failed to become popular,
> >>> .
> >>> Pascal and Algol 60 did not have string handling.
> >>> Algol 60 did not have a defined I/O.
> > .
> >> Algol 60 wasn't a programming language
> > .
> > FALSE. ALGOL 58, the predecessor of ALGOL 60, was designed as a
> > programming language.
> Read the Algol reort then you can see that its intention was not
> primarily to be a computer language and not a mathematical language.
.
RUBBISH.
> Op 27-5-2021 om 18:45 schreef Robin Vowels:
> > On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 5:55:42 PM UTC+10, ldries46 wrote:
> >> Op 27-5-2021 om 8:53 schreef Robin Vowels:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 at 10:25:17 PM UTC+10, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> >>>> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
> >>>> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
> >>>> clearly failed to become popular,
> >>> .
> >>> Pascal and Algol 60 did not have string handling.
> >>> Algol 60 did not have a defined I/O.
> > .
> >> Algol 60 wasn't a programming language
> > .
> > FALSE. ALGOL 58, the predecessor of ALGOL 60, was designed as a
> > programming language.
> Read the Algol reort then you can see that its intention was not
> primarily to be a computer language and not a mathematical language.
.
John Backus (1959):
,
"The Zurich ACM-GAMM Conference had two principal motives in proposing the IAL: (a) To provide a means of communicating numerical methods and other procedures between people, and (b) To provide a means of realizing a stated process on a variety of machines..."
.
The first ALGOL 58 compiler was running in 1958.
.
From the Revised Report:
.
"... ALGOL 60. This is a language suitable for expressing a large class of numerical processes in a form sufficiently concise for direct automatic translation into the language of programmed automatic computers."
Gautier write-only address
May 28, 2021, 10:49:46 AM5/28/21
to
Le jeudi 27 mai 2021 à 18:00:18 UTC+2, Paul Rubin a écrit :
> The binary of Turbo Pascal was eventually released for no cost download,
> but apparently the source code was never released. That is
> disappointing based on how cool the above articles make it sound.
Perhaps source code was not *officially* released but you find it easily on the Web (for TP 6.0) :-).
> The binary of Turbo Pascal was eventually released for no cost download,
> but apparently the source code was never released. That is
> disappointing based on how cool the above articles make it sound.
Gautier write-only address
May 28, 2021, 11:01:12 AM5/28/21
to
Interestingly, the HAC Ada Compiler ( https://hacadacompiler.sourceforge.io/ , https://github.com/zertovitch/hac ) is a distant descendent of Pascal-S by Wirth and identifiers are searched linearly via a linked list.
And yes, the compiler is very fast :-).
And yes, the compiler is very fast :-).
Paul Rubin
May 28, 2021, 3:22:15 PM5/28/21
to
Gautier write-only address <gautier...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Perhaps source code was not *officially* released but you find it
> easily on the Web (for TP 6.0) :-).
Very interesting! I did find what I think you are referring to, though
> Perhaps source code was not *officially* released but you find it
> easily on the Web (for TP 6.0) :-).
it is much larger than the old versions. It's weird that it looks like
an official Borland release of some kind (complete with postal address
for tech support). I didn't realize they had ever let that out.
Anyway, thanks for the tip! The compiler proper seems to be about
25KLOC of almost entirely uncommented assembly code, plus Pascal
headers. I will see if I can understand any of it. I wonder if it
might be a disassembly, or otherwise obfuscated by Borland (by stripping
comments) for purpose of the release.
Sometime back I looked rather hard for the source code of TP (any
version) and I found something claiming to be TP source code, but was
actually something like a Windows wrapper. But this is different.
I think someone might have also published a disassembly of a released TP
2.0 binary, but I'm more interested in the original source as a
historical artifact, rather than something to actually use and run in
this day and age.
The comparable and amazing for the era BDS C was released as source code
here:
https://www.bdsoft.com/resources/bdsc.html
Luke A. Guest
May 30, 2021, 12:12:56 PM5/30/21
to
On 28/05/2021 14:28, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> Otherwise yes, it was pretty fast, much faster than MS-DOS C/C++
Apparently, they were fast because the Turbo compilers didn't do
> Otherwise yes, it was pretty fast, much faster than MS-DOS C/C++
optimisations due to the limitations of the machines.
Bill Findlay
May 30, 2021, 3:00:04 PM5/30/21
to
On 30 May 2021, Luke A. Guest wrote
(in article <s90di4$1v5f$1...@gioia.aioe.org>):
They were fast only by comparison with very slow compilers.
I remember, around 1987, someone telling me in astonishment
that Turbo ran at 2KSLOC/minute. I was unimpressed, as I had
worked on a compiler that ran at 20KSLOC/min a decade earlier.
--
Bill Findlay
(in article <s90di4$1v5f$1...@gioia.aioe.org>):
I remember, around 1987, someone telling me in astonishment
that Turbo ran at 2KSLOC/minute. I was unimpressed, as I had
worked on a compiler that ran at 20KSLOC/min a decade earlier.
--
Bill Findlay
Paul Rubin
May 31, 2021, 10:26:57 AM5/31/21
to
Bill Findlay <findl...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> They were fast only by comparison with very slow compilers.
> I remember, around 1987, someone telling me in astonishment
> that Turbo ran at 2KSLOC/minute. I was unimpressed, as I had
> worked on a compiler that ran at 20KSLOC/min a decade earlier.
Do you mean Turbo Pascal, or one of the other Turbos like Turbo C++?
> They were fast only by comparison with very slow compilers.
> I remember, around 1987, someone telling me in astonishment
> that Turbo ran at 2KSLOC/minute. I was unimpressed, as I had
> worked on a compiler that ran at 20KSLOC/min a decade earlier.
Did you mean KSLOC/second rather than per minute? I think by 1987
(that would have been the 286-386 era) TP would have been compiling many
KSLOC/second. On old CP/M machines it would have been slower.
Was your 20KSLOC/??? compiler running on comparable hardware?
Bill Findlay
May 31, 2021, 8:32:34 PM5/31/21
to
On 31 May 2021, Paul Rubin wrote
(in article <87k0nff...@nightsong.com>):
Well, I am trying to recall a passing conversation from 34 years
ago, so I may have some details wrong. I cannot swear that they
were impressed by Turbo Pascal rather than C*, but Turbo Pascal
was heavily used in the Department at the time.
The 20KSLOC compiler ran on a 1.5MIPS machine.
--
Bill Findlay
(in article <87k0nff...@nightsong.com>):
ago, so I may have some details wrong. I cannot swear that they
were impressed by Turbo Pascal rather than C*, but Turbo Pascal
was heavily used in the Department at the time.
The 20KSLOC compiler ran on a 1.5MIPS machine.
--
Bill Findlay
Paul Rubin
May 31, 2021, 11:34:21 PM5/31/21
to
Yes, but 1) 20KSLOC per what unit of time, 2) what language did it
compile? 1.5 mips is probably faster than a PC-XT (8088) but slower
than a PC-AT (80286). I remember being impressed with the speed of
Turbo C on the 386 that I used for a while. I never used Turbo Pascal.
CP/M and the original PC were somewhat before my time.
compile? 1.5 mips is probably faster than a PC-XT (8088) but slower
than a PC-AT (80286). I remember being impressed with the speed of
Turbo C on the 386 that I used for a while. I never used Turbo Pascal.
CP/M and the original PC were somewhat before my time.
Bill Findlay
Jun 1, 2021, 7:23:33 AM6/1/21
to
On 1 Jun 2021, Paul Rubin wrote
(in article <87fsy2f...@nightsong.com>):
> Bill Findlay<findl...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> > The 20KSLOC compiler ran on a 1.5MIPS machine.
>
> Yes, but 1) 20KSLOC per what unit of time,
Per minute, as I said originally.
> 2) what language did it compile?
Pascal.
--
Bill Findlay
(in article <87fsy2f...@nightsong.com>):
> Bill Findlay<findl...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> > The 20KSLOC compiler ran on a 1.5MIPS machine.
>
> Yes, but 1) 20KSLOC per what unit of time,
> 2) what language did it compile?
--
Bill Findlay
Shark8
Jun 1, 2021, 10:09:32 AM6/1/21
to
On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 1:22:15 PM UTC-6, Paul Rubin wrote:
Can you provide the link?
Or search terms?
> Gautier write-only address <gautier> writes:
> > Perhaps source code was not *officially* released but you find it
> > easily on the Web (for TP 6.0) :-).
> Very interesting! I did find what I think you are referring to,
I was unable to find it.
> > Perhaps source code was not *officially* released but you find it
> > easily on the Web (for TP 6.0) :-).
> Very interesting! I did find what I think you are referring to,
Can you provide the link?
Or search terms?
Paul Rubin
Jun 1, 2021, 12:46:08 PM6/1/21
to
Bill Findlay <findl...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>> > The 20KSLOC compiler ran on a 1.5MIPS machine.
>> Yes, but 1) 20KSLOC per what unit of time,
Ok, but that's maybe 5x slower than Turbo Pascal, which compiled 1000s
>> > The 20KSLOC compiler ran on a 1.5MIPS machine.
>> Yes, but 1) 20KSLOC per what unit of time,
of LOC per second on machines of that class.
Bill Findlay
Jun 1, 2021, 7:04:49 PM6/1/21
to
On 1 Jun 2021, Paul Rubin wrote
(in article <877djdf...@nightsong.com>):
The details are vague now, the gist was that the 1977 compiler
on comparable machines was several times faster that Turbo.
I see no point in pursuing this further.
--
Bill Findlay
John Perry
Jun 2, 2021, 10:04:43 AM6/2/21
to
On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 6:04:49 PM UTC-5, Bill Findlay wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2021, Paul Rubin wrote
> (in article <877djdf...@nightsong.com>):
> > Bill Findlay<findl...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> > > > > The 20KSLOC compiler ran on a 1.5MIPS machine.
> > > > Yes, but 1) 20KSLOC per what unit of time,
> >
> > Ok, but that's maybe 5x slower than Turbo Pascal, which compiled 1000s
> > of LOC per second on machines of that class.
> Well that is not what emerged in the conversation I reported.
> The details are vague now, the gist was that the 1977 compiler
> on comparable machines was several times faster that Turbo.
May I ask what is meant by "comparable machines"?
> On 1 Jun 2021, Paul Rubin wrote
> (in article <877djdf...@nightsong.com>):
> > Bill Findlay<findl...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> > > > > The 20KSLOC compiler ran on a 1.5MIPS machine.
> > > > Yes, but 1) 20KSLOC per what unit of time,
> >
> > Ok, but that's maybe 5x slower than Turbo Pascal, which compiled 1000s
> > of LOC per second on machines of that class.
> Well that is not what emerged in the conversation I reported.
> The details are vague now, the gist was that the 1977 compiler
> on comparable machines was several times faster that Turbo.
Here's why I ask: it can't have been a machine based on the Intel 8088, because that wasn't available until 1979. An elderly embedded engineer I know says that the CPU used in the PC series, at least the early PC's (8088 & 286) was a terrible CPU. He likes to joke how his <1MHz 6809-based "Trash 80 Color Computer" at $500 could run circles around the >4MHz 8088-based IBM at $1500.
So I'm curious if you know the basis of the claim that it was comparable hardware: clock speed, RAM, etc.
> I see no point in pursuing this further.
Dmitry A. Kazakov
Jun 2, 2021, 10:39:05 AM6/2/21
to
On 2021-06-02 16:04, John Perry wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 6:04:49 PM UTC-5, Bill Findlay wrote:
>> On 1 Jun 2021, Paul Rubin wrote
>> (in article <877djdf...@nightsong.com>):
>>> Bill Findlay<findl...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>>>>>> The 20KSLOC compiler ran on a 1.5MIPS machine.
>>>>> Yes, but 1) 20KSLOC per what unit of time,
>>>
>>> Ok, but that's maybe 5x slower than Turbo Pascal, which compiled 1000s
>>> of LOC per second on machines of that class.
>> Well that is not what emerged in the conversation I reported.
>> The details are vague now, the gist was that the 1977 compiler
>> on comparable machines was several times faster that Turbo.
>
> May I ask what is meant by "comparable machines"?
Around the end of 80's we used the dhrystone benchmark to compare machines.
> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 6:04:49 PM UTC-5, Bill Findlay wrote:
>> On 1 Jun 2021, Paul Rubin wrote
>> (in article <877djdf...@nightsong.com>):
>>> Bill Findlay<findl...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>>>>>> The 20KSLOC compiler ran on a 1.5MIPS machine.
>>>>> Yes, but 1) 20KSLOC per what unit of time,
>>>
>>> Ok, but that's maybe 5x slower than Turbo Pascal, which compiled 1000s
>>> of LOC per second on machines of that class.
>> Well that is not what emerged in the conversation I reported.
>> The details are vague now, the gist was that the 1977 compiler
>> on comparable machines was several times faster that Turbo.
>
> May I ask what is meant by "comparable machines"?
> Here's why I ask: it can't have been a machine based on the Intel 8088, because that wasn't available until 1979. An elderly embedded engineer I know says that the CPU used in the PC series, at least the early PC's (8088 & 286) was a terrible CPU. He likes to joke how his <1MHz 6809-based "Trash 80 Color Computer" at $500 could run circles around the >4MHz 8088-based IBM at $1500.
outperformed 12MHz 286. But the instruction set of PDP-11 was eons ahead
of the 286's mess.
> So I'm curious if you know the basis of the claim that it was comparable hardware: clock speed, RAM, etc.
difficult language to compile comparing to Turbo Pascal, especially
using the methods that were popular then.
The only decent C compiler I remember from that time was DEC VAX C.
Even advanced machines like Motorola 68k, HP had horrific C compilers.
[Sun's SPARC C was somewhat better] The first thing to do was to
bootstrap an early GCC on these machines, because the standard compilers
were insufferable. I carried the sources with on a tape (maybe even on a
reel, I do not remember). That was fun.
Simon Wright
Jun 2, 2021, 1:26:13 PM6/2/21
to
"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mai...@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> Even advanced machines like Motorola 68k, HP had horrific C compilers.
HP salesman: "Our compiler supports ANSI C (except for function
> Even advanced machines like Motorola 68k, HP had horrific C compilers.
prototypes)"
Bill Findlay
Jun 2, 2021, 2:13:08 PM6/2/21
to
On 2 Jun 2021, John Perry wrote
(in article<52640622-179a-40d3...@googlegroups.com>):
> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 6:04:49 PM UTC-5, Bill Findlay wrote:
> > On 1 Jun 2021, Paul Rubin wrote
> > (in article <877djdf...@nightsong.com>):
> > > Bill Findlay<findl...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> > > > > > The 20KSLOC compiler ran on a 1.5MIPS machine.
> > > > > Yes, but 1) 20KSLOC per what unit of time,
> > >
> > > Ok, but that's maybe 5x slower than Turbo Pascal, which compiled 1000s
> > > of LOC per second on machines of that class.
> > Well that is not what emerged in the conversation I reported.
> > The details are vague now, the gist was that the 1977 compiler
> > on comparable machines was several times faster that Turbo.
>
> May I ask what is meant by "comparable machines"?
Machines that ran other programs at about the same speed,
I specifically had in mind the Whetstone and the Ackermann
function benchmarks.
> Here's why I ask: it can't have been a machine based on the Intel 8088,
> because that wasn't available until 1979.
The 20KSLOC/min compiler ran on an ICL 1906S,
which had a Whetstone rating of ~800 KWIPS.
> > I see no point in pursuing this further.
>
> I can understand, and I apologize if I shouldn't have asked, but I am
> genuinely curious about what was meant. I hope you don't mind.
I don't mind, it's just that I thought the lack of concrete
data makes further discussion a bit pointless.
--
Bill Findlay
(in article<52640622-179a-40d3...@googlegroups.com>):
> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 6:04:49 PM UTC-5, Bill Findlay wrote:
> > On 1 Jun 2021, Paul Rubin wrote
> > (in article <877djdf...@nightsong.com>):
> > > Bill Findlay<findl...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> > > > > > The 20KSLOC compiler ran on a 1.5MIPS machine.
> > > > > Yes, but 1) 20KSLOC per what unit of time,
> > >
> > > Ok, but that's maybe 5x slower than Turbo Pascal, which compiled 1000s
> > > of LOC per second on machines of that class.
> > Well that is not what emerged in the conversation I reported.
> > The details are vague now, the gist was that the 1977 compiler
> > on comparable machines was several times faster that Turbo.
>
> May I ask what is meant by "comparable machines"?
I specifically had in mind the Whetstone and the Ackermann
function benchmarks.
> Here's why I ask: it can't have been a machine based on the Intel 8088,
> because that wasn't available until 1979.
which had a Whetstone rating of ~800 KWIPS.
> > I see no point in pursuing this further.
>
> I can understand, and I apologize if I shouldn't have asked, but I am
> genuinely curious about what was meant. I hope you don't mind.
data makes further discussion a bit pointless.
--
Bill Findlay
Gautier write-only address
Jun 2, 2021, 2:51:14 PM6/2/21
to
> I was unable to find it.
> Can you provide the link?
> Or search terms?
"turbo pascal 6 source" -> (2nd link on Google) ->
> Can you provide the link?
> Or search terms?
https://archive.org/details/TP6SrcInst
"Zip" link:
https://archive.org/download/TP6SrcInst/%5BDOS%20Application%5D%20Borland%20-%20Turbo%20Pascal%206.0%20%28Sources%20included%29%20-%20Installation%20Disks%20%5Bhttp---usuarios.lycos.es-scratchupload%5D.zip
Gabriele Galeotti
Jun 2, 2021, 3:17:08 PM6/2/21
to
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 at 2:25:17 PM UTC+2, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
> clearly failed to become popular, at least compared
> The first language I really liked was Pascal.
> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have
> to the C-family (C, C++, C#, ....)
>
> The question is why did this happen?
>
> My theory: C was used to develop Unix/Linux and
> Windows, and this made it easier for applications
> to be written in C/C++ since the interface to the OS
> was easier. VMS did not choose C (considered a huge
>
> The question is why did this happen?
>
> My theory: C was used to develop Unix/Linux and
> Windows, and this made it easier for applications
> to be written in C/C++ since the interface to the OS
> blunder by many. They choose Bliss
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLISS instead! and we
> all know what happens to VMS.
>
> What is your theory on this? Was there another
> reason or set of reasons?
>
> Can we all blame this success of the C family of
> languages on Dennis Ritchie and Brian Kernighan
> brilliance and it being used for Unix?
>
> --Nasser
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLISS instead! and we
> all know what happens to VMS.
>
> What is your theory on this? Was there another
> reason or set of reasons?
>
> Can we all blame this success of the C family of
> languages on Dennis Ritchie and Brian Kernighan
> brilliance and it being used for Unix?
>
By chance.
Most of the time a concept/idea is simply too ahead-of-time, or misunderstood.
In the 80s, there was P-code on the Apple II. It was beautiful and fast. But it was too early.
25 years later, Java bytecode came out, exactly the same thing, a cheeky clone.
It was a success (at least, commercially).
Randy Brukardt
Jun 2, 2021, 7:11:13 PM6/2/21
to
"Gabriele Galeotti" <gabriele.g...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:62a51520-f7bc-4bbf...@googlegroups.com...
...
of it. At least one of the early Ada compilers was built for as well.
> 25 years later, Java bytecode came out, exactly the same thing, a cheeky
> clone.
>
> It was a success (at least, commercially).
Given all of the above, p-code was a relative success as well. It just died
out for whatever reason before Java came around doing approximately the same
thing. (Quite possibly the possibility of practical just-in-time compilation
made Java stick around longer than p-code.)
But the reality of it is that the hype machine got behind Java for whatever
reason, but never really did behind Ada or pc-code.
(Note that the intermediate code used by Janus/Ada was based on the ideas of
p-code [with Ada-specific stuff like exception handling and tasking]; code
at the level has a number of advantages. We never built an interpreter for
it although it would be possible.)
Randy.
news:62a51520-f7bc-4bbf...@googlegroups.com...
...
> In the 80s, there was P-code on the Apple II. It was beautiful and fast.
> But it was too early.
P-code existed on a lot of machines; there was even a hardware CPU version
> But it was too early.
of it. At least one of the early Ada compilers was built for as well.
> 25 years later, Java bytecode came out, exactly the same thing, a cheeky
> clone.
>
> It was a success (at least, commercially).
out for whatever reason before Java came around doing approximately the same
thing. (Quite possibly the possibility of practical just-in-time compilation
made Java stick around longer than p-code.)
But the reality of it is that the hype machine got behind Java for whatever
reason, but never really did behind Ada or pc-code.
(Note that the intermediate code used by Janus/Ada was based on the ideas of
p-code [with Ada-specific stuff like exception handling and tasking]; code
at the level has a number of advantages. We never built an interpreter for
it although it would be possible.)
Randy.
Paul Rubin
Jun 2, 2021, 7:40:54 PM6/2/21
to
Gabriele Galeotti <gabriele.g...@gmail.com> writes:
> In the 80s, there was P-code on the Apple II... 25 years later, Java
including features for multithreading and for garbage collection.
> In the 80s, there was P-code on the Apple II... 25 years later, Java
> bytecode came out, exactly the same thing, a cheeky clone.
The JVM isn't really comparable to P-code. It is a lot fancier,
including features for multithreading and for garbage collection.
Gabriele Galeotti
Jun 2, 2021, 9:04:46 PM6/2/21
to
25 years of technological advantages (the P-code had to run on a 64kB,
1-MHz 6502), but the base concept is nearly the same, a stack-based VM.
Gabriele Galeotti
Jun 2, 2021, 9:29:11 PM6/2/21
to
that it couldn't make the point in the 90s, at least on microcomputer-class
machines.
Still talking about the Apple II, I think one of the reason is that it was way
too complicated for the average user, with no less than 5 thick manuals
and an underlying OS like the UCSD that was a radical departure in
those times.
Shark8
Jun 7, 2021, 1:56:46 PM6/7/21
to
0 new messages