Re: [fpc-pascal] MySQL
On 15 Oct 2009, at 18:02, Paul Davidson wrote: Some linker output: ld: warning: in /Users/pauldavidson/dev/cape96/libmysqlclient.a, file is not of required architecture Undefined symbols: [snip] It goes on... Do note the 'file is not of required architecture'. Ummm It means that the library contains code for different architectures than the one you are compiling for (e.g., you are compiling for i386 and the library only contains PowerPC or x86_64 object files). That would indeed explain the problem. You can run lipo -info /Users/pauldavidson/dev/cape96/libmysqlclient.a to see for which architectures the library contains code. Jonas ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] BNF grammar for fpc
In our previous episode, leledumbo said: > > > is a complete grammar for fpc written in some variant of BNF available > > somewhere? > > > > I searched the website and the wiki, to no avail. > > AFAIK, there's none. The developers adding language features by directly > modifying the code. Even there's a bounty for it. See: > http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Bounties#FPC_grammar There is not even a proper open one for Delphi. At least there wasn't till a while back. IIRC there was a discussion about this in comp.lang.pascal.delphi.misc somewhere in the summer, and some new sources were mentioned. Have a look. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] open arrays as parameters (why packed not allowed)?
On 15 Oct 2009, at 16:30, Bruce Bauman wrote: From: fpc-pascal-boun...@lists.freepascal.org [mailto:fpc-pascal-boun...@lists.freepascal.org] On Behalf Of Jonas Maebe Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:28 AM On 15 Oct 2009, at 14:49, Bruce Bauman wrote: [packed for open array parameters] Is there a reason why "packed" is not allowed in this context? I think it's simply because I forgot to add it when adding support for packed arrays. Please file a bug report. Thanks. Will do. Sorry, I misread the mail, I thought it was about bitpacked arrays. Plain "packed" arrays are no different from regular arrays in FPC (we basically ignore that modifier, except in MacPas mode where it's an alias for bitpacked), so the "packed" monicker can simply be left out when declaring the open array parameter. Jonas ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] pointer arithmetic help required
Now I know why vendors of newer languages (Dephi, Java etc) are trying to hide pointers from programmers. They are very tricky to work with - and give errors without warning! Especially when compiler and programmer are both trying to outsmart each other. :D Yes. But I never needed pointer arithmetic in my programs even when using pointers heavily. I always use arrays (of pointers) or records (with pointers) where the pointers point to well defined data types. I an a bit astonished that pointer arithmetic is even possible in Pascal. Yet another C-style crept in. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] BNF grammar for fpc
There is not even a proper open one for Delphi. At least there wasn't till a while back. That may be because it is no longer possible to write a BNF grammar for these compilers due to the c-style extensions. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] open arrays as parameters (why packed not allowed)?
Sorry, I misread the mail, I thought it was about bitpacked arrays. Plain "packed" arrays are no different from regular arrays in FPC (we basically ignore that modifier, except in MacPas mode where it's an alias for bitpacked), so the "packed" monicker can simply be left out when declaring the open array parameter. Then it could also be allowed (and ignored)? ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] open arrays as parameters (why packed not allowed)?
On 16 Oct 2009, at 10:43, Jürgen Hestermann wrote: Sorry, I misread the mail, I thought it was about bitpacked arrays. Plain "packed" arrays are no different from regular arrays in FPC (we basically ignore that modifier, except in MacPas mode where it's an alias for bitpacked), so the "packed" monicker can simply be left out when declaring the open array parameter. Then it could also be allowed (and ignored)? Yes, but he doesn't have to wait for this to be implemented in the compiler. Jonas___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] BNF grammar for fpc
On 16 Oct 2009, at 10:42, Jürgen Hestermann wrote: That may be because it is no longer possible to write a BNF grammar for these compilers due to the c-style extensions. BNF grammars exist for C (e.g. as part of the ANSI C standard) and even for C++. Please don't start a language war in every single thread. Jonas___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] BNF grammar for fpc
In our previous episode, J?rgen Hestermann said: > > There is not even a proper open one for Delphi. At least there wasn't till a > > while back. > > That may be because it is no longer possible to write a BNF grammar for > these compilers due to the c-style extensions. Odd that there are grammers for C and C++ then, and they have no problem :-) Please don't grab any random other thread to make your point. The reason is probably more because Wirthian languages traditionally use recursive descent parsers. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Who said Pascal isn't popular
章宏九 wrote:
I don't agree with the idea that "BEGIN...END" determines the failure
of Pascal, as syntax completion is for that. Both "BEGIN...END" and
"{...}" are finished in the same time if they were done by computer.
On the contrary, it is part of the way of Pascal being elegant.
Its very amusing to me when I meet people who are also developers and tell them
I use object pascal and they look at me like I just told them I was using punch
cards.
I just tell them...
ObjectPascal: Strong like C, Easy like VB.
--
Warm Regards,
Lee
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] BNF grammar for fpc
Marco van de Voort schrieb: > In our previous episode, J�rgen Hestermann said: >>> There is not even a proper open one for Delphi. At least there wasn't till a >>> while back. >> That may be because it is no longer possible to write a BNF grammar for >> these compilers due to the c-style extensions. > > Odd that there are grammers for C and C++ then, and they have no problem :-) > Please don't grab any random other thread to make your point. > > The reason is probably more because Wirthian languages traditionally use > recursive descent parsers. gcc as well for several years simply because a recursive descent parser is faster than one generated automatically from a BNF grammar. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Re: BNF grammar for fpc
> From: Marco van de Voort > (...) > The reason is probably more because Wirthian languages traditionally use > recursive descent parsers. This reminds me: there are a compiler generator named COCO/R wich has a Pascal version (Delphi actually). It generates recursive descendent parsers. ( search results -> www.google.com/search?hl=es&q=%22COCO%2FR%22&btnG=Buscar&lr=). Greetings. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] MySQL
dsl-corax:~ pauldavidson$ lipo -info /Users/pauldavidson/dev/cape96/ libmysqlclient.a input file /Users/pauldavidson/dev/cape96/libmysqlclient.a is not a fat file Non-fat file: /Users/pauldavidson/dev/cape96/libmysqlclient.a is architecture: x86_64 Noted that Xcode is set for 32 bit universal output. Tried setting it to 10.6 / 64 bit output but: can't build libfpc.a for x86_64 (ppcx64 not found) mv: rename /Users/pauldavidson/dev/cape96/build/cape96.build/Debug/ fpc.build/libfpc.a to /Users/pauldavidson/dev/cape96/build/Debug/ libfpc.a: No such file or directory Thank you Off topic: Friend of mine :) http://wheresthefilm.com/Insects/Beetles/slides/StackBeetle02.html It means that the library contains code for different architectures than the one you are compiling for (e.g., you are compiling for i386 and the library only contains PowerPC or x86_64 object files). That would indeed explain the problem. You can run lipo -info /Users/pauldavidson/dev/cape96/libmysqlclient.a to see for which architectures the library contains code. Jonas ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
RE: [fpc-pascal] open arrays as parameters (why packed not allowed)?
Great, although ignoring the "packed" would be very useful as we are mechanically translating a large body of code. -- Bruce From: fpc-pascal-boun...@lists.freepascal.org on behalf of Jonas Maebe Sent: Fri 10/16/2009 4:50 AM To: FPC-Pascal users discussions Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] open arrays as parameters (why packed not allowed)? On 16 Oct 2009, at 10:43, Jürgen Hestermann wrote: >> Sorry, I misread the mail, I thought it was about bitpacked arrays. >> Plain "packed" arrays are no different from regular arrays in FPC >> (we basically ignore that modifier, except in MacPas mode where >> it's an alias for bitpacked), so the "packed" monicker can simply >> be left out when declaring the open array parameter. > > Then it could also be allowed (and ignored)? Yes, but he doesn't have to wait for this to be implemented in the compiler. Jonas___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your computer and contact the sender. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] MySQL
On 16 Oct 2009, at 14:16, Paul Davidson wrote: dsl-corax:~ pauldavidson$ lipo -info /Users/pauldavidson/dev/cape96/ libmysqlclient.a input file /Users/pauldavidson/dev/cape96/libmysqlclient.a is not a fat file Non-fat file: /Users/pauldavidson/dev/cape96/libmysqlclient.a is architecture: x86_64 Noted that Xcode is set for 32 bit universal output. Tried setting it to 10.6 / 64 bit output but: can't build libfpc.a for x86_64 (ppcx64 not found) mv: rename /Users/pauldavidson/dev/cape96/build/cape96.build/Debug/ fpc.build/libfpc.a to /Users/pauldavidson/dev/cape96/build/Debug/ libfpc.a: No such file or directory That's correct, FPC 2.2.4 only support i386 and PowerPC for Mac OS X. The upcoming 2.4.0 release will also support x86_64, PowerPC/64 and ARM. Jonas ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] MySQL
Jonas Maebe schreef: That's correct, FPC 2.2.4 only support i386 and PowerPC for Mac OS X. The upcoming 2.4.0 release will also support x86_64, PowerPC/64 and ARM. As far as I could see, there are no x86_64 Mac OS X snapshots. Is that correct? Vincent ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] BNF grammar for fpc
The reason is probably more because Wirthian languages traditionally use recursive descent parsers. gcc as well for several years simply because a recursive descent parser is faster than one generated automatically from a BNF grammar. That is true, but the _expression_ power is not as good as a BNF grammar. There are some language constructs that is simply not posible with a LL(1) parser, when comparing to the LALR(1). I don't have the details with me right now, but have a decent book on compiler construction at home. Kind regards, - Torsten Bonde Christiansen. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] BNF grammar for fpc
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Marc Santhoff wrote: > is a complete grammar for fpc written in some variant of BNF available > somewhere? > Gold parser builder has a BNF grammar for Delphi 7 (AFAIK, incomplete): http://www.devincook.com/goldparser/grammars/index.htm Regards, Gerard. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] BNF grammar for fpc
In our previous episode, Florian Klaempfl said: > >> these compilers due to the c-style extensions. > > > > Odd that there are grammers for C and C++ then, and they have no problem :-) > > Please don't grab any random other thread to make your point. > > > > The reason is probably more because Wirthian languages traditionally use > > recursive descent parsers. > > gcc as well for several years simply because a recursive descent parser > is faster than one generated automatically from a BNF grammar. Afaik most C/C++ production compilers are nowadays, gcc was about the last. It doesn't preclude BNF grammars from existing though, which was the point. On Pascal, not even the startup compilers are parser generator (grammar) based. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] MySQL
On 16 Oct 2009, at 14:51, Vincent Snijders wrote: Jonas Maebe schreef: That's correct, FPC 2.2.4 only support i386 and PowerPC for Mac OS X. The upcoming 2.4.0 release will also support x86_64, PowerPC/64 and ARM. As far as I could see, there are no x86_64 Mac OS X snapshots. Is that correct? Yes. There aren't any PPC64 or (regular) ARM ones either. Both x86_64 and PPC64 will also only be useful for command line programs, because MacOSAll haven't been adapted for 64 bit yet (and a lot of its functionality is not available in 64 bit mode). Jonas ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Who said Pascal isn't popular
Lee Jenkins wrote:
I don't agree with the idea that "BEGIN...END" determines the failure
of Pascal, as syntax completion is for that. Both "BEGIN...END" and
"{...}" are finished in the same time if they were done by computer.
On the contrary, it is part of the way of Pascal being elegant.
Its very amusing to me when I meet people who are also developers and tell them
I use object pascal and they look at me like I just told them I was using punch
cards.
I just tell them...
ObjectPascal: Strong like C, Easy like VB.
--
Warm Regards,
Lee
That blank look in the eyes of the C crowd is so strange. Lots and lots
of people shy away from C/C++/etc since it is so obviously bad, but they
don't know about Pascal so they go to slow scripting languages. They
sure are happpier there than with C, but Pascal would be so much better
in many cases.
I usually don't say that I use Pascal, I say that I use FPC. Then they
don't understandand what that is and think they missed something. And
they sure have.
FPC: Faster to compiler, faster to run, faster to write, faster to
debug... We should print T-shirts with messages like that.
/Ingemar
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] MySQL
Ok, 32 bit universal it is! Is there any database access method that works with this mode for 10.6.1? And how? Again, thank you On 2009-10-16, at 8:59 AM, Jonas Maebe wrote: On 16 Oct 2009, at 14:51, Vincent Snijders wrote: Jonas Maebe schreef: That's correct, FPC 2.2.4 only support i386 and PowerPC for Mac OS X. The upcoming 2.4.0 release will also support x86_64, PowerPC/64 and ARM. As far as I could see, there are no x86_64 Mac OS X snapshots. Is that correct? Yes. There aren't any PPC64 or (regular) ARM ones either. Both x86_64 and PPC64 will also only be useful for command line programs, because MacOSAll haven't been adapted for 64 bit yet (and a lot of its functionality is not available in 64 bit mode). Jonas ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] MySQL
On 16 Oct 2009, at 15:12, Paul Davidson wrote: Ok, 32 bit universal it is! Is there any database access method that works with this mode for 10.6.1? And how? Since MySQL is not shipped with Mac OS X, you somehow installed/ obtained an x86_64 version of its client library. Install/obtain a ppc/ i386 version of the client library, and you can link 32 bit programs against it. Mac OS X 10.5/10.6 running on an x86_64-capable cpu can run i386, x86_64 and ppc binaries (the last ones under emulation, the rest natively). Jonas ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] BNF grammar for fpc
On 16/10/2009 10:53, Florian Klaempfl wrote: Marco van de Voort schrieb: In our previous episode, J�rgen Hestermann said: There is not even a proper open one for Delphi. At least there wasn't till a while back. That may be because it is no longer possible to write a BNF grammar for these compilers due to the c-style extensions. Odd that there are grammers for C and C++ then, and they have no problem :-) Please don't grab any random other thread to make your point. The reason is probably more because Wirthian languages traditionally use recursive descent parsers. gcc as well for several years simply because a recursive descent parser is faster than one generated automatically from a BNF grammar. A while back, I read "Compiler Construction", by Prof. Wirth, now available for download: http://www-old.oberon.ethz.ch/WirthPubl/CBEAll.pdf It looks like recursive descent parsers and EBNF grammars go quite well together, so having a recursive descent parser should not be a bar to having a grammar. Is the problem that you start off with a grammar, write the parser, then maintain the parser without updating the grammar? Frank ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Who said Pascal isn't popular
On Friday 16 October 2009 06:04:17 am Ingemar Ragnemalm wrote:
> > Lee Jenkins wrote:
> >> I don't agree with the idea that "BEGIN...END" determines the failure
> >> of Pascal, as syntax completion is for that. Both "BEGIN...END" and
> >> "{...}" are finished in the same time if they were done by computer.
> >> On the contrary, it is part of the way of Pascal being elegant.
> >
> > Its very amusing to me when I meet people who are also developers and
> > tell them I use object pascal and they look at me like I just told them I
> > was using punch cards.
> >
> > I just tell them...
> >
> > ObjectPascal: Strong like C, Easy like VB.
> >
> > --
> > Warm Regards,
> >
> > Lee
>
> That blank look in the eyes of the C crowd is so strange. Lots and lots
> of people shy away from C/C++/etc since it is so obviously bad, but they
> don't know about Pascal so they go to slow scripting languages. They
> sure are happpier there than with C, but Pascal would be so much better
> in many cases.
>
> I usually don't say that I use Pascal, I say that I use FPC. Then they
> don't understandand what that is and think they missed something. And
> they sure have.
>
> FPC: Faster to compiler, faster to run, faster to write, faster to
> debug... We should print T-shirts with messages like that.
>
>
> /Ingemar
But you guys all seem to be forgetting what I wrote near the beginning of this
thread, Pascal is merely a TEACHING language, which is why we have C. :)
Most people aren't interested in truth (e.g. that Pascal is a vastly superior
language in almost every respect). They are instead interested in what is
popular, politically correct, and has been artfully propagandized into their
gullible, small minds from a source they believe to be an "authority" (e.g.
REAL programmers don't use Pascal).
All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed,
second it is violently opposed, and
third, it is accepted as self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
Getting small-minded people to wake up on almost any topic, from programming
languages to global politics, is the stuff of revolution. And that is the
BEGINing and the END.
Mark Emerson
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Who said Pascal isn't popular
On Friday 16 October 2009 06:40:20 am Mark Emerson wrote:
> On Friday 16 October 2009 06:04:17 am Ingemar Ragnemalm wrote:
> > > Lee Jenkins wrote:
> > >> I don't agree with the idea that "BEGIN...END" determines the failure
> > >> of Pascal, as syntax completion is for that. Both "BEGIN...END" and
> > >> "{...}" are finished in the same time if they were done by computer.
> > >> On the contrary, it is part of the way of Pascal being elegant.
> > >
> > > Its very amusing to me when I meet people who are also developers and
> > > tell them I use object pascal and they look at me like I just told them
> > > I was using punch cards.
> > >
> > > I just tell them...
> > >
> > > ObjectPascal: Strong like C, Easy like VB.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Warm Regards,
> > >
> > > Lee
> >
> > That blank look in the eyes of the C crowd is so strange. Lots and lots
> > of people shy away from C/C++/etc since it is so obviously bad, but they
> > don't know about Pascal so they go to slow scripting languages. They
> > sure are happpier there than with C, but Pascal would be so much better
> > in many cases.
> >
> > I usually don't say that I use Pascal, I say that I use FPC. Then they
> > don't understandand what that is and think they missed something. And
> > they sure have.
> >
> > FPC: Faster to compiler, faster to run, faster to write, faster to
> > debug... We should print T-shirts with messages like that.
> >
> >
> > /Ingemar
>
> But you guys all seem to be forgetting what I wrote near the beginning of
> this thread, Pascal is merely a TEACHING language, which is why we have C.
> :)
>
> Most people aren't interested in truth (e.g. that Pascal is a vastly
> superior language in almost every respect). They are instead interested in
> what is popular, politically correct, and has been artfully propagandized
> into their gullible, small minds from a source they believe to be an
> "authority" (e.g. REAL programmers don't use Pascal).
>
> All truth passes through three stages.
> First, it is ridiculed,
> second it is violently opposed, and
> third, it is accepted as self-evident.
>
> Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
>
> Getting small-minded people to wake up on almost any topic, from
> programming languages to global politics, is the stuff of revolution. And
> that is the BEGINing and the END.
>
> Mark Emerson
Correction... I should have said " (e.g. that *the FPC implemention of* Pascal
is a vastly superior language in almost every respect)." Sorry.
Mark Emerson
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] BNF grammar for fpc
Frank Peelo schrieb: > > Is the problem that you start off with a grammar, write the parser, then > maintain the parser without updating the grammar? > Every early FPC (FPK Pascal) prototypes in 1993 used yacc as well but it was simply too slow and also memory consuming at these days. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] BNF grammar for fpc
Florian Klaempfl schrieb: > Frank Peelo schrieb: >> Is the problem that you start off with a grammar, write the parser, then >> maintain the parser without updating the grammar? >> > > Every early FPC (FPK Pascal) prototypes in 1993 used yacc as well but it Very early ... ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Who said Pascal isn't popular
Mark Emerson wrote: Most people aren't interested in truth (e.g. that Pascal is a vastly superior language in almost every respect). They are instead interested in what is popular, politically correct, and has been artfully propagandized into their gullible, small minds from a source they believe to be an "authority" (e.g. REAL programmers don't use Pascal). Its also a manpower issue, and the number one reason I make my living writing C nowadays rather than Pascal. You can post an ad for a C programmer and get 1,000 applicants, if you post an ad for a Pascal programmer you might get 5, at least where I live. While I have argued that those 5 are probably better programmers than most of the 1,000, those that do the hiring don't care. They worry that if one guy gets hits by a bus, they won't be able to find anyone to replace him. That's also why I don't do much programming in Forth anymore (although I am working on one project with it as I type). Jeff. -- I haven't smoked for 3 years, 1 month and 4 weeks, saving $5,203.99 and not smoking 34,693.30 cigarettes. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] MySQL
Now have proper version of MySQL on machine Thank you all for help. Compiles and mostly runs :) On 2009-10-16, at 9:21 AM, Jonas Maebe wrote: On 16 Oct 2009, at 15:12, Paul Davidson wrote: Ok, 32 bit universal it is! Is there any database access method that works with this mode for 10.6.1? And how? Since MySQL is not shipped with Mac OS X, you somehow installed/ obtained an x86_64 version of its client library. Install/obtain a ppc/i386 version of the client library, and you can link 32 bit programs against it. Mac OS X 10.5/10.6 running on an x86_64-capable cpu can run i386, x86_64 and ppc binaries (the last ones under emulation, the rest natively). Jonas ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Who said Pascal isn't popular
You can post an ad for a C programmer and get 1,000 applicants, if you post an ad for a Pascal programmer you might get 5, at least where I live. Yes, that maybe true. But how has all this started? As far as I know, C was not that popular in past (at least not on Windows). Instead (Turbo) Pascal was a widely used language. Suddenly this turned. May have come from Linux, where C was standard. I don't know. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Who said Pascal isn't popular
If memory serves... Microsoft for first few version of DOS used assembler. This proved expensive for Microsoft as the number of people willing to program in intel assembler was quite limited. Microsoft kept hearing about this C programming language which students at MS were talking about. It was essentially free and the number of people willing to program was high, and their cost (because they were students) was low. Microsoft converted to C. The reasons that C was popular was quite simple. It was free to universities and colleges so professors did not have to pay compiler licenses to IBM, Xerox, Control Data, etc. This made it quite popular with faculty. C requires little or no discipline to program in. So the typical zit faced 18 year old socially outcast student loved it as well. The perfect eco-system :) So like many things that originate from US (but not all) it was the law of the cheapest solution. So today we have C, C++, and Java (a toilet trained version of C++) to use. On 2009-10-16, at 12:58 PM, Jürgen Hestermann wrote: You can post an ad for a C programmer and get 1,000 applicants, if you post an ad for a Pascal programmer you might get 5, at least where I live. Yes, that maybe true. But how has all this started? As far as I know, C was not that popular in past (at least not on Windows). Instead (Turbo) Pascal was a widely used language. Suddenly this turned. May have come from Linux, where C was standard. I don't know. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Who said Pascal isn't popular
In our previous episode, J?rgen Hestermann said: > > You can post an ad for a C > > programmer and get 1,000 applicants, if you post an ad for a Pascal > > programmer you might get 5, at least where I live. > > Yes, that maybe true. But how has all this started? As far as I know, C > was not that popular in past (at least not on Windows). Instead (Turbo) > Pascal was a widely used language. Suddenly this turned. May have come > from Linux, where C was standard. I don't know. As far as I saw it, it was simple: - C was used in IT, specially in America. - Pascal was used in engineering and science, specially in Europe. Engineering stopped programming by hand, and moved to Matlab and more specialized tools. Moreover, there was a consolidation in IT, and many of the surviving companies were American, with a C/C++ legacy. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Who said Pascal isn't popular
2009/10/16 Marco van de Voort : > In our previous episode, Jürgen Hestermann said: >> > You can post an ad for a C >> > programmer and get 1,000 applicants, if you post an ad for a Pascal >> > programmer you might get 5, at least where I live. >> >> Yes, that maybe true. But how has all this started? As far as I know, C >> was not that popular in past (at least not on Windows). Instead (Turbo) >> Pascal was a widely used language. Suddenly this turned. May have come >> from Linux, where C was standard. I don't know. > > As far as I saw it, it was simple: > > - C was used in IT, specially in America. > - Pascal was used in engineering and science, specially in Europe. > > Engineering stopped programming by hand, and moved to Matlab and more > specialized tools. Moreover, there was a consolidation in IT, and many of > the surviving companies were American, with a C/C++ legacy. The thing that cuts it for me, at least, is that in linux, if you need to hack the kernel, drivers, bootloader, or even just use anything in /dev, it's a lot easier to use c. Also, it targets a greater number of architectures. We've made the mistake of writing code in pascal that we later needed to port, but had to re-write. It's come a long way, though, and armel port seems to be quite usable nowadays. Henry ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] BNF grammar for fpc
mar...@stack.nl: > The reason is probably more because Wirthian languages traditionally use > recursive descent parsers. Yeah, right. The reason is most definitely that of all those people who know the language well enough to write the grammar, there's no one actually doing it. Of course, with all those new features and Delphi-compatibility switches, the language probably probably changes too often to be worth the effort at all. Vinzent. -- Jetzt kostenlos herunterladen: Internet Explorer 8 und Mozilla Firefox 3.5 - sicherer, schneller und einfacher! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/chbrowser ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] BNF grammar for fpc
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 4:58 AM, leledumbo wrote: > AFAIK, there's none. The developers adding language features by directly > modifying the code. Even there's a bounty for it. See: > http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Bounties#FPC_grammar I contacted the person that posted the bounty but he didn't answer. If anyone still wants a grammar I'm interrested in writing for a fair price. thanks, -- Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] New/Dispose vs GetMem/FreeMem
Are they based on the C library "maloc" or entirely genuine FPC code? Alain Michaud Florian Klaempfl wrote: Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: Hi, Which of these should I use in new projects? I read somewhere that GetMem/FreeMem is actually compatibility methods from Turbo Pascal days, yet I have seen lots of new code that uses it, so I guess it's still ok to use? GetMem/FreeMem are lower level than new/dispose. Use New/Dispose as much as possible. I have various complex structured types and pointers to those types. Will New() and Dispose() automatically know what size to allocated and deallocate, seeing that it doesn't have a Size parameter? Yes. It initializes/finalizes even automated types what Get/FreeMem doesn't do. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] BNF grammar for fpc
Am Donnerstag, den 15.10.2009, 23:58 -0700 schrieb leledumbo: > > is a complete grammar for fpc written in some variant of BNF available > > somewhere? > > > > I searched the website and the wiki, to no avail. > > AFAIK, there's none. The developers adding language features by directly > modifying the code. Even there's a bounty for it. See: > http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Bounties#FPC_grammar Okay, nothing to play with without huge effort. ;) Thank you, Marc -- Marc Santhoff ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Who said Pascal isn't popular
"Jürgen Hestermann" : > > You can post an ad for a C > > programmer and get 1,000 applicants, if you post an ad for a Pascal > > programmer you might get 5, at least where I live. Yes, and guess what: Odds are that there are more than 5 good ones out of the 1000 C-programmers than a single good one out of the 5 Pascal-programmers. > Yes, that maybe true. But how has all this started? As far as I know, C > was not that popular in past (at least not on Windows). Instead (Turbo) > Pascal was a widely used language. Suddenly this turned. May have come > from Linux, where C was standard. I don't know. It has never changed. It always has been that way. Same goes for any programmming language which claims to be better than C. You know what: Being worse than C would be quite an accomplishment. So the real choice is not: C or Pascal, but C or "any language". Statistically that means half of the people choose C - and the remaining half chooses a language out of thousands of others. Vinzent. -- Neu: GMX DSL bis 50.000 kBit/s und 200,- Euro Startguthaben! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02 ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Who said Pascal isn't popular
How about creating a "Holy War" page at the freepascal wiki and moving all notes from this thread there? The page can be become a good source of arguments in all kind of Pascal vs C (or any other language) battles :) As well as good historical notes about pascal language. thanks, dmitry ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] New/Dispose vs GetMem/FreeMem
In our previous episode, Alain Michaud said: > Are they based on the C library "maloc" or entirely genuine FPC code? FPC code, but you can change to "malloc", by using unit cmem (only on *nix) ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] BNF grammar for fpc
2009/10/15 Marc Santhoff : > > is a complete grammar for fpc written in some variant of BNF available > somewhere? About 2 weeks ago, I had no clue what BNF was. Funny that you mention it, because I am working on a LaTeX converter to IPF. I was google'ing for a BNF for LaTeX, as a starting point. Anyway, I found the following like to a BNF Compiler that supports 5+ languages. http://code.haskell.org/bnfc/ Maybe this can be extended to Object Pascal - time permitting obviously. -- Regards, - Graeme - ___ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/ ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Who said Pascal isn't popular
2009/10/16 Jeff Wormsley : > > Its also a manpower issue, and the number one reason I make my living > writing C nowadays rather than Pascal. You can post an ad for a C > programmer and get 1,000 applicants, if you post an ad for a Pascal Any programmer worth hiring should find it relatively easy to switch to another language. Or and least become proficient in it in a relative short period of time. The basic principles apply to all languages, it's just the tool-chain and syntax that differs. -- Regards, - Graeme - ___ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/ ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] BNF grammar for fpc
Am Freitag, den 16.10.2009, 22:50 +0200 schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys: > 2009/10/15 Marc Santhoff : > > > > is a complete grammar for fpc written in some variant of BNF available > > somewhere? > > About 2 weeks ago, I had no clue what BNF was. Funny that you mention > it, because I am working on a LaTeX converter to IPF. I was google'ing > for a BNF for LaTeX, as a starting point. > > Anyway, I found the following like to a BNF Compiler that supports 5+ > languages. > http://code.haskell.org/bnfc/ > > Maybe this can be extended to Object Pascal - time permitting obviously. There are too many compiler generation tools to know them all. we all know: - lex and yacc - flex and bison and the pascal generating mutant more recent: - antlr (former pccts) - eli and DEViL - JavaCC - Jaccie and SIC older things like twig, burg and the like - Coco/R was named already - Gold Parsing System was totally new to me and so on. If you have fun fiddling with those tools some good starting points are: http://catalog.compilertools.net/ http://www.compilers.net/ http://www.thefreecountry.com/ http://cui.unige.ch/db-research/Enseignement/analyseinfo/BNFweb.html Have a nice weekend, Marc -- Marc Santhoff ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] BNF grammar for fpc
Marc Santhoff wrote: Am Freitag, den 16.10.2009, 22:50 +0200 schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys: 2009/10/15 Marc Santhoff : is a complete grammar for fpc written in some variant of BNF available somewhere? ... If you have fun fiddling with those tools some good starting points are: http://catalog.compilertools.net/ http://www.compilers.net/ http://www.thefreecountry.com/ http://cui.unige.ch/db-research/Enseignement/analyseinfo/BNFweb.html Have a nice weekend, Marc The following page is about Delphi 5 : http://www.felix-colibri.com/papers/compilers/delphi_5_grammar/delphi_5_grammar.html Thank you very much Mehmet Erol Sanliturk ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
