Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
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.
I certain
"Vinzent H?fler" wrote:
Graeme Geldenhuys :
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 t
Graeme Geldenhuys :
> I have been programming solely in Object Pascal for the last 9 years.
> I dab in Java every now and again (but not for any production
> software). I also read a lot of C/C++ code which I rewrite into Object
> Pascal for whatever reason. So just like me being able to read and
A quick study of some language reference docs and a few examples
should be all you need to get started.
The general rules are easy to learn. But to be productive you also need
to know about environments (IDE etc.), available libraries and their
usage (which already differ between Delphi and La
On 17/10/2009, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
>
> Absolutely. But there's also the catch: With people only knowing C where
> should this knowledge come from?
Documentation.
I have been programming solely in Object Pascal for the last 9 years.
I dab in Java every now and again (but not for any productio
On Saturday 17 October 2009, Henry Vermaak wrote:
> I think Graeme's point was that if you have a good grasp of software
> design and programming techniques, you can write good software in
> whatever language you choose.
Absolutely. But there's also the catch: With people only knowing C where
sh
2009/10/17 "Vinzent Höfler" :
> Graeme Geldenhuys :
>
>> 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
Graeme Geldenhuys :
> 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.
Yes and no
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
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
_
"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 goo
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 starte
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
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
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)
P
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 beli
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" an
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
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.
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 am
Hmm, currently I am also learning Oberon.
No any language requires an IDE. I use vim. Others might use emacs.
These are enough. What we need is a simple editor (if you like, GNU
nano or simply "cat > 1.pas" is okay) and a compiler. They can make
the world, although not that efficiently.
Not the b
2009/10/12 Rainer Stratmann :
> Am Montag, 12. Oktober 2009 16:21 schrieb Gustavo Enrique Jimenez:
>> 2009/10/12 Rainer Stratmann :
>> > Am Montag, 12. Oktober 2009 11:02 schrieb Jürgen Hestermann:
>> >> > Remember, Pascal is merely a TEACHING language, unsuitable for
>> >> > commercial software de
"Jürgen Hestermann" :
> And why should that be the case? What are the outstanding feature of C
> that make it so supperiour? It's illogical and hard to maintain syntax?
Its "Compile anything, crash everywhere." interface. :P
Vinzent.
--
Jetzt kostenlos herunterladen: Internet Explorer 8 und M
Am Montag, 12. Oktober 2009 16:21 schrieb Gustavo Enrique Jimenez:
> 2009/10/12 Rainer Stratmann :
> > Am Montag, 12. Oktober 2009 11:02 schrieb Jürgen Hestermann:
> >> > Remember, Pascal is merely a TEACHING language, unsuitable for
> >> > commercial software development, which is why we have C.
2009/10/12 Rainer Stratmann :
> Am Montag, 12. Oktober 2009 11:02 schrieb Jürgen Hestermann:
>> > Remember, Pascal is merely a TEACHING language, unsuitable for commercial
>> > software development, which is why we have C. :)
>>
>> And why should that be the case? What are the outstanding feature
C is popular *even though* it is an awful concept.
It is like the video cassettes.
Betamax and Video2000 were the better quality,
but VHS was the most popular cassette.
Yes, sadly this is true (same with Microsoft pressing one awfull OS
after the other into the market). Not always the best win
Am Montag, 12. Oktober 2009 12:31 schrieb Jürgen Hestermann:
> > Yes, it is available everywhere.
> > And it is easier to copy unix code then.
> > Remember that it is still not easy to come to freepascal.
> > You have to configure a debian testing system and apt-get lazarus and so
> > on... Nearly
2009/10/12 Marco van de Voort :
>>
>> Yes, it is available everywhere.
>
> Try compiling some Unix C code on Windows.
>
> Give me Free Pascal any time :-)
+1
...and Try compiling some Unix C code on Unix/Linux/etc. I always
battle. Give me Free Pascal too! :-)
PS:
Wow, did this message thread
In our previous episode, Rainer Stratmann said:
> > > Remember, Pascal is merely a TEACHING language, unsuitable for commercial
> > > software development, which is why we have C. :)
> >
> > And why should that be the case? What are the outstanding feature of C
> > that make it so supperiour? It's
Yes, it is available everywhere.
And it is easier to copy unix code then.
Remember that it is still not easy to come to freepascal.
You have to configure a debian testing system and apt-get lazarus and so on...
Nearly nowhere the lazarus package is preinstalled.
Yes, these are the reasons for ha
2009/10/12 Rainer Stratmann :
>
> Which editor do you use?
I'm not the one you replied to, but I can answer based on my
experience. I never use APT for FPC or Lazarus because they update
packages to slowly. I work directly from the Git mirror repositories.
* If I'm at work or home, I use Lazarus
Zitat von Rainer Stratmann :
Am Montag, 12. Oktober 2009 11:02 schrieb Jürgen Hestermann:
> Remember, Pascal is merely a TEACHING language, unsuitable for commercial
> software development, which is why we have C. :)
And why should that be the case? What are the outstanding feature of C
that
Am Montag, 12. Oktober 2009 12:05 schrieb leledumbo:
> you don't need lazarus just to use fpc, and I don't need that debian
> testing system on my kubuntu.
Which editor do you use?
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.
> Remember, Pascal is merely a TEACHING language, unsuitable for commercial
> software development, which is why we have C. :)
That's what I'm going to change. I've told my friends and collegemates about
Pascal superiority (suitable for any programming needs, GUI, WebApps,
Server, etc.) and the
Am Montag, 12. Oktober 2009 11:02 schrieb Jürgen Hestermann:
> > Remember, Pascal is merely a TEACHING language, unsuitable for commercial
> > software development, which is why we have C. :)
>
> And why should that be the case? What are the outstanding feature of C
> that make it so supperiour? I
Remember, Pascal is merely a TEACHING language, unsuitable for commercial
software development, which is why we have C. :)
And why should that be the case? What are the outstanding feature of C
that make it so supperiour? It's illogical and hard to maintain syntax?
Or is it just that it was a
At 05:27 PM 10/11/2009, Mark Emerson wrote:
Remember, Pascal is merely a TEACHING language, unsuitable for commercial
software development, which is why we have C. :)
Yeah, right... >:-}
Ralf ;-)
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.free
Remember, Pascal is merely a TEACHING language, unsuitable for commercial
software development, which is why we have C. :)
On Sunday 11 October 2009 05:00:04 pm Ralf A. Quint wrote:
> At 03:25 PM 10/11/2009, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> >I came across this link by chance. Wow, I never knew there w
At 03:25 PM 10/11/2009, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
I came across this link by chance. Wow, I never knew there was that
many Pascal Compiler implementations. A lot!
http://pascaland.org/pascall.htm
Well, reduce it to the compilers that are still maintained, and the
list is far less impressive...
39 matches
Mail list logo
