Pascal recommendation?
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Paul Sture on 27 Jan 2010 13:45 In article <270120100559496115%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <SalmonEgg-5F14B1.02321527012010(a)news60.forteinc.com>, > Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > What would people here recommend that allow simple data manipulations > > but not require much integration of software from multiple sources? > > how about applescript? FWIW I tried Applescript and hated it. I'd done COBOL, FORTRAN, BASIC, Ada, Pascal and PL/I, and I just couldn't get on with Applescript. Maybe I should have another go ;-) -- Paul Sture
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?= on 27 Jan 2010 13:54 nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <1jczqy0.1lze1gq1yqygl5N%per(a)RQNNE.invalid>, Per R�nne > <per(a)RQNNE.invalid> wrote: > > > You can run GNU Pascal on your Mac. It is a kind of Borland Pascal and > > it is a free download: > > it's not well supported and not worth the trouble. If that is the case I would opt for Objective C - but of course I'm a computer science major with Pascal as my 'mother tongue' from my freshman year at The University of Copenhagen. -- Per Erik R�nne http://www.RQNNE.dk Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?= on 27 Jan 2010 14:09 Paul Sture <paul.nospam(a)sture.ch> wrote: > In article <270120100559496115%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, > nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > In article <SalmonEgg-5F14B1.02321527012010(a)news60.forteinc.com>, > > Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > What would people here recommend that allow simple data manipulations > > > but not require much integration of software from multiple sources? > > > > how about applescript? > > FWIW I tried Applescript and hated it. I'd done COBOL, FORTRAN, BASIC, > Ada, Pascal and PL/I, and I just couldn't get on with Applescript. > > Maybe I should have another go ;-) AppleScript is difficult to learn for programmers; it is simply hard to se what is part of the programming language and what is not. A decent Extende Backus-Naur Formula had been nice! AppleScript uses a kind of 'natural language'. And works on different commands depending on the scope - so 'tell <application>' moves you into a new scope with different commands, depending on the application. Basically, it's a script language like Visual Basic for Applications. Not like the ones we're used to from different UNIX shells. -- Per Erik R�nne http://www.RQNNE.dk Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe
From: Richard Maine on 27 Jan 2010 14:26 Michael Vilain <vilain(a)NOspamcop.net> wrote: > FORTRAN... > I sometimes wished for a "uninitialized variable warning". Most (all?) modern Fortran compilers have one. > Again, I think we're veering into a religious aspect of this discussion > and there's no cheese down that tunnel. Heathen. :-) -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
From: Tom Stiller on 27 Jan 2010 15:27
In article <vilain-9778F8.11202727012010(a)news.individual.net>, Michael Vilain <vilain(a)NOspamcop.net> wrote: > In article <270120101333290569%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, > nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > In article <vilain-BB44A0.09502727012010(a)news.individual.net>, Michael > > Vilain <vilain(a)NOspamcop.net> wrote: > > > > > HATE Pascal. It's upside down (with subroutines first). > > > > declaring something before using it is hardly upside down. you need to > > do that with variables, for example. > > FORTRAN could do it. You can put all the declarations in front if you > want. Most didn't bother, trusting the compiler's defaults. I declared > everything as it helped with optimization (DEC's Fortran had some of the > best optimization code out there). I sometimes wished for a > "uninitialized variable warning". Guess that's why C header files > seemed like such a good idea to me. Actually, I just think it's many > vendor's implementation as a single pass compiler. Fortran et al did > multiple passes. C does it with a preprocessor. > > Again, I think we're veering into a religious aspect of this discussion > and there's no cheese down that tunnel. A good FORTRAN programmer can write a FORTRAN program in *any* language. ;-) -- Tom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF |