2009/4/18 norseman <norse...@hughes.net>: > "...only within the current procedure." That was one of the "why Pascal > didn't hang on" as long as it might have.
Really? I thought it was because of the lack of support for packaging, which was solved in different ways by Object Pascal/Delphi and by Modula 2, the latter of which in turn became Ada, which is still doing pretty well in mission-critical contexts. > Another was it's COBAL structure > in defining things. Just like today - the more typing the more errors, the > longer to 'in service'. Got any evidence for that? There's a lot of typing in Ada (it shows its Pascal roots) but in all the studies I've seen Ada production code has consistently shown fewer errors than the more concise C/C++ family of languages. -- Tim Rowe -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
