🚀 go-pugleaf

Charles Richmond <richmond@dallas.net> writes:

> swaim@nol.net wrote:
> >
> > Derek Peschel <dpeschel@eskimo.com> wrote:
> > > Delphi seems to be popular with some people.  I guess it's the descendant of
> > > Turbo Pascal in some sense.
> >
> >   Delphi uses Object Pascal, which was a lat version of Turbo Pascal. It's
> > a signifigantly extended version of Pascal. (At what point is Pascal no
> > longer Pascal?) Also, it's competition is primarily VB which is more
> > annoying.
> >
> Okay, I have heard of the Brian Kernighan's paper "Why Pascal Is Not My
> Favorite Programming Language".  It seems like there was a BYTE magazine
> article on this paper once a long time ago...  Now ISO standard Pascal
> has basically *two* different standards...Level 0 Pascal and Level 1
> Pascal.  Kernighan's criticism was aimed at Level 0 Pascal.  Level 1
> Pascal was much more like Turbo Pascal, with more features that made
> it a usable language.
>
> Can anyone post the differences between Level 0 and Level 1 Pascal,
> and what features that Turbo Pascal has above Level 1???
>

I never played with a level 1 system (my BBC micro only had level 0,
you needed I think the second processor (or maybe a Master) to get it
to run at level 1.  Level 1 added variable-length arrays to the
language.  This feature is not only very handy, it's also, how shall I
put it mildly, still *!@#ing missing from C.  I have no idea how this
was supposed to interact with separate compilation (I don't think
Pascal ever had this).

Also, IIRC level 1 still didn't add any I/O to the language.

--
Ariel Scolnicov