Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3?
in [ADA]
|
From: Martin Krischik on 28 Mar 2010 10:54 Am 26.03.2010, 19:24 Uhr, schrieb Warren <ve3wwg(a)gmail.com>: > Martin Krischik expounded in > news:op.u950lqpyz25lew(a)macpro-eth1.krischik.com: > >> Am 24.03.2010, 17:57 Uhr, schrieb Adam Beneschan <adam(a)irvine.com>: >> >>> So it's executed by an interpreter. That doesn't make the *language* >>> compiled into p-code an INTERPRETED LANGUAGE, which is what we were >>> talking about---not any old "interpreter". >> >> My personal definition is that a language is interpreted if the >> majority of implementations use an interpreter. And Pascal would not >> be among the list. >> >> Martin > > I still maintain you need to be specific about it. I will > agree that they all were not interpreted. But at the same > time it is equally wrong to imply that they were all compiled. I make it simple for you: Pascal: language, not interpreted UCSD-Pascal, language *implementation*, interpreted. As you say: you have to be specific. Martin -- Martin Krischik
From: Warren on 29 Mar 2010 09:28 Martin Krischik expounded in news:op.u996t11wz25lew(a)macpro-eth1.krischik.com: > That would be "saw" it as popular. UCSD Pascal is dead long ago. You > are clinging on the very last straw here to keep your argument up! > > Martin I disagree. ;-) Warren
From: Warren on 29 Mar 2010 09:31 Martin Krischik expounded in news:op.u9958tkwz25lew(a)macpro- eth1.krischik.com: >> I still maintain you need to be specific about it. I will >> agree that they all were not interpreted. But at the same >> time it is equally wrong to imply that they were all compiled. > > I make it simple for you: > > Pascal: language, not interpreted > UCSD-Pascal, language *implementation*, interpreted. > > As you say: you have to be specific. > > Martin The reason it's important here to distinguish, is that one might assume "interpreted" by its quoted performance level. I recognize that p-code went out of fashion a long time ago, but for clarity.. "The prosecution rests." Warren
From: David Thompson on 31 Mar 2010 02:55 On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:33:46 -0700 (PDT), Adam Beneschan <adam(a)irvine.com> wrote: <snip> > I wish I could! I've been in this business for over 30 years and I > still haven't figured out how not to make mistakes. <snip> > So bounds checking is a good thing. Even so, it's good to have a > choice. Pascal and Ada, as usually implemented, let you choose > between the extra safety of bounds checks and the added performance of > eliminating them in programs that have been tested. C doesn't. Ada has standard-in-language option, so all implementations must provide it; PL/I same. Pascal doesn't require checking, but common practice is yes or option. Fortran doesn't require it, and common practice is no, but there have long been some that do, especially since F90 made unnecessary (but did not entirely remove) the assumed-size' (aterisk) form that most discourages it. C doesn't prohibit it, but encourages pointer use that makes it more difficult; there have been bounds-checking C implementations, but in the dancing bear category.
From: Martin Krischik on 31 Mar 2010 04:08
Am 31.03.2010, 08:55 Uhr, schrieb David Thompson <dave.thompson2(a)verizon.net>: > Ada has standard-in-language option, so all implementations must > provide it; PL/I same. Pascal doesn't require checking, but common > practice is yes or option. Just noticed that the three languages quoted also lets you specify the base index. That is you can specify an array starting at 1980 and ending at 2010. And before the performance freaks panic: If you have a statistic application collecting data from 1980 to 2010 then a 0 based index will only give you a lot of extra work but no performance advantage. Martin -- Martin Krischik |