* Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?
@ 2001-12-13 21:52 bwc
2001-12-13 23:56 ` [9fans] Pascal for Plan9: a HOWTO Skip Tavakkolian
2001-12-13 23:57 ` [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? Andrew Simmons
0 siblings, 2 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: bwc @ 2001-12-13 21:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 653 bytes --]
On the subject of Pascal, you really need to look at Oberon.
Niklaus Wirth continued to evolve Algol after Pascal.
Oberon is a real language, and it overcomes all of Kernighan's
objections to Pascal. (All except the ones that have now been
put into C, like defining procedures before referencing them).
Oberon has many of the desirable traits of Limbo; compile and runtime
typechecking, garbage collection. It compiles into native code so it
executes faster for embedded stuff (what I do).
Also, it inspired acme. (the Oberon OS, not the language)
I hope to have Oberon running on Plan 9 someday in the distant
future.
Brantley
[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1622 bytes --]
From: David Gordon Hogan <dhog@plan9.bell-labs.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:50:47 -0500
Message-ID: <20011212215052.F2DE7199ED@mail.cse.psu.edu>
> > Why? What use would it be?
>
> Writting software ! <G> What * use * else...
I've never found Pascal to be particularly useful
for writing software. I understand that it was
originally intended for teaching purposes, but
there are some tasks which are so difficult to
do correctly with Pascal that you have to learn
how to program again when you start using a
real language, like C.
And then there's Basic...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Pascal for Plan9: a HOWTO 2001-12-13 21:52 [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? bwc @ 2001-12-13 23:56 ` Skip Tavakkolian 2001-12-13 23:57 ` [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? Andrew Simmons 1 sibling, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: Skip Tavakkolian @ 2001-12-13 23:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans Use p2c by Dave Gillespie (http://www.synaptics.com/people/daveg/). In some very early incarnations of TeX distribution for UNIX you needed p2c. I think it is this same one. I very hope you'll notice that what I've done below could have been done by a trained hairy monkey! ================================================= cpu% hget -o p2c-1.20.1.tar.gz 'http://www.synaptics.com/people/daveg/p2c-1.20.1.tar.gz' cpu% mkdir p2c cpu% cd p2c cpu% gunzip -c <../p2c-1.20.1.tar.gz | tar -xv x HP/import/asm.imp, 1332 bytes x HP/import/fs.imp, 4894 bytes x HP/import/general_0.imp, 940 bytes x HP/import/general_1.imp, 646 bytes x HP/import/general_2.imp, 911 bytes x HP/import/general_3.imp, 232 bytes x HP/import/general_4.imp, 1992 bytes x HP/import/hpib_0.imp, 775 bytes x HP/import/hpib_1.imp, 1359 bytes x HP/import/hpib_2.imp, 1489 bytes x HP/import/hpib_3.imp, 1178 bytes x HP/import/iodecl.imp, 11318 bytes x HP/import/misc.imp, 2478 bytes x HP/import/sysdevs.imp, 15631 bytes x HP/import/sysglobals.imp, 13046 bytes x HP/import/rnd.imp, 210 bytes x HP/include/asm.h, 1663 bytes x HP/include/hpib_0.h, 435 bytes x HP/include/hpib_1.h, 710 bytes x HP/include/fs.h, 4438 bytes x HP/include/general_0.h, 824 bytes x HP/include/general_1.h, 690 bytes x HP/include/general_2.h, 862 bytes x HP/include/general_3.h, 347 bytes x HP/include/general_4.h, 1497 bytes x HP/include/hpib_2.h, 934 bytes x HP/include/hpib_3.h, 658 bytes x HP/include/iodecl.h, 6087 bytes x HP/include/misc.h, 2815 bytes x HP/include/rnd.h, 160 bytes x HP/include/sysdevs.h, 12249 bytes x HP/include/sysglobals.h, 8748 bytes x Makefile, 1629 bytes x README, 5669 bytes x examples/fact.p, 299 bytes x examples/self.p, 1101 bytes x examples/c/basic.c, 52947 bytes x examples/c/cref.c, 7649 bytes x examples/c/e.c, 2640 bytes x examples/c/fact.c, 433 bytes x examples/c/self.c, 1554 bytes x examples/cref.p, 11280 bytes x examples/e.p, 2411 bytes x examples/p2crc, 822 bytes x examples/Makefile, 777 bytes x examples/README, 1463 bytes x examples/basic.p, 66611 bytes x examples/basic.doc, 11310 bytes x ftp.README, 1133 bytes x src/README, 3024 bytes x src/HISTORY, 26404 bytes x src/p2c.man, 47539 bytes x src/NOTES, 32785 bytes x src/COPYING, 12488 bytes x src/sys.p2crc, 78998 bytes x src/Makefile, 5449 bytes x src/trans.c, 40665 bytes x src/stuff.c, 13533 bytes x src/out.c, 35574 bytes x src/comment.c, 9620 bytes x src/lex.c, 87350 bytes x src/parse.c, 126397 bytes x src/decl.c, 144578 bytes x src/expr.c, 143339 bytes x src/pexpr.c, 109596 bytes x src/funcs.c, 144081 bytes x src/dir.c, 5264 bytes x src/hpmods.c, 3182 bytes x src/citmods.c, 31419 bytes x src/p2clib.c, 18218 bytes x src/loc.p2clib.c, 185 bytes x src/makeproto.c, 16398 bytes x src/p2c.h, 13483 bytes x src/trans.h, 79073 bytes x src/p2c.proto, 20013 bytes x src/p2c.hdrs, 32223 bytes x src/TAGS, 33605 bytes x src/p2c.cat, 84298 bytes x src/system.imp, 3784 bytes x src/system.m2, 803 bytes x src/turbo.imp, 9333 bytes x src/string.pas, 1802 bytes x src/loc.p2crc, 138 bytes x src/INSTALL, 5669 bytes cpu% ape/psh bind: /386/bin/pub: file does not exist $ echo $PATH /bin:. $ export PATH=/bin/ape:$PATH $ echo $PATH /bin/ape:/bin:. $ make Compiling p2c, installing in /usr/fst/p2c/home... cd src; make install cc makeproto.c -o makeproto ./makeproto -n -m -h -t16 -a35 -s1 -i trans.c stuff.c out.c comment.c lex.c parse.c decl.c expr.c pexpr.c funcs.c dir.c hpmods.c citmods.c -o p2c.proto ./makeproto -n -m -h -t16 -a35 -s0 -x trans.c stuff.c out.c comment.c lex.c parse.c decl.c expr.c pexpr.c funcs.c dir.c hpmods.c citmods.c -o p2c.hdrs if [ ! -d ../home ]; then mkdir ../home; fi if [ ! -d .. ]; then mkdir ..; fi if [ ! -d ../home ]; then mkdir ../home; fi if [ ! -d ../home ]; then mkdir ../home; fi if [ ! -d ../home/p2c ]; then mkdir ../home/p2c; fi cc -c -DHASDUMPS -DP2C_HOME=\"`cd ../home; pwd`\" trans.c cc -c stuff.c cc -c out.c cc -c comment.c cc -c lex.c cc -c parse.c cc -c decl.c cc -c expr.c cc -c pexpr.c cc -c funcs.c cc -c -DCUST1=hpmods -DCUST2=citmods dir.c cc -c hpmods.c cc -c citmods.c cc trans.o stuff.o out.o comment.o lex.o parse.o decl.o expr.o pexpr.o funcs.o dir.o hpmods.o citmods.o -o p2c cp p2c ../p2c cc -c p2clib.c cc -c loc.p2clib.c ar r libp2c.a p2clib.o loc.p2clib.o ar: creating libp2c.a cp libp2c.a ../home/libp2c.a if [ -f /usr/bin/ranlib -o -f /bin/ranlib ]; then ranlib ../home/libp2c.a; fi sed -e "s;--HOMEDIR--;`cd ../home; pwd`;" -e "s;--INCDIR--;`cd ../home/p2c; pwd`;" -e "s;--LIBDIR--;`cd ../home; pwd`;" p2c.man >p2c.man.inst if [ -f /usr/bin/nroff -o -f /bin/nroff ]; then nroff -man p2c.man.inst >p2c.cat; fi cp p2c.cat ../home/p2c.1 cp p2c.h ../home/p2c/p2c.h cp sys.p2crc ../home/p2crc cp loc.p2crc ../home/loc.p2crc cp system.imp ../home/system.imp cp system.m2 ../home/system.m2 cp turbo.imp ../home/turbo.imp cp string.pas ../home/string.pas Translating and compiling example files... cd examples; make comp ../p2c fact.p fact, factorials Translation completed. c89 -I../home fact.c ../home/libp2c.a -o fact ../p2c e.p initinteger, divide e.p, line 37: Note: Using % for possibly-negative arguments [317] , add, sub, e e.p, line 121: Note: Using % for possibly-negative arguments [317] e.p, line 122: Note: Using % for possibly-negative arguments [317] e.p, line 123: Note: Using % for possibly-negative arguments [317] Translation completed. c89 -I../home e.c ../home/libp2c.a -o e ../p2c self.p t, q, self Translation completed. c89 -I../home self.c ../home/libp2c.a -o self ../p2c cref.p lookup, kw, cref, traverse, crefprog cref.p, line 228: Note: Null character at end of sprintf control string [148] Translation completed. c89 -I../home cref.c ../home/libp2c.a -o cref ../p2c basic.p restoredata, clearloops, arraysize, clearvar, clearvars, numtostr basic.p, line 237: Note: Modification of string length may translate incorrectly [146] basic.p, line 248: Note: Modification of string length may translate incorrectly [146] , parse basic.p, line 309: Note: Modification of string length may translate incorrectly [146] basic.p, line 415: Note: Modification of string length may translate incorrectly [146] , listtokens, disposetokens, parseinput, errormsg, snerr, tmerr, badsubscr, realfactor, strfactor, stringfactor, intfactor, realexpr, strexpr, stringexpr, intexpr, require, skipparen, findvar, inot, ixor, factor basic.p, line 1029: Note: Range checking is OFF [216] basic.p, line 1032: Note: Range checking is ON [216] , upexpr, term basic.p, line 1078: Note: Using % for possibly-negative arguments [317] , sexpr, relexpr, andexpr, expr, checkextra, iseos, skiptoeos, findline, mustfindline, cmdend, cmdnew, cmdlist, cmdload, cmdrun, cmdsave, cmdbye, cmddel, cmdrenum, cmdprint, cmdinput, cmdlet, cmdgoto, cmdif, cmdelse, skiploop, cmdfor, cmdnext, cmdwhile, cmdwend, cmdgosub, cmdreturn, cmdread, cmddata, cmdrestore, cmdgotoxy, cmdon, cmddim, cmdpoke basic.p, line 2073: Note: Range checking is OFF [216] basic.p, line 2077: Note: Range checking is ON [216] , exec basic.p, line 2175/1552: Note: Line breaker spent 0.0 seconds, 5000 tries on line 1552 [251] basic.p, line 2175/1566: Note: Line breaker spent 0.0 seconds, 5000 tries on line 1566 [251] , basic Translation completed. c89 -I../home basic.c ../home/libp2c.a -lm -o basic Running the factorial example... examples/fact The factorial of 1 is 1 The factorial of 2 is 2 The factorial of 3 is 6 The factorial of 4 is 24 The factorial of 5 is 120 The factorial of 6 is 720 The factorial of 7 is 5040 The factorial of 8 is 40320 The factorial of 9 is 362880 The factorial of 10 is 3628800 Running the 'e' computation example... examples/e Series: 0.00% Series: 0.10% Series: 0.10% Series: 0.20% Series: 0.30% Series: 0.30% Series: 0.40% Series: 0.50% Series: 0.60% Series: 0.69% Series: 0.79% Series: 0.89% Series: 0.99% Series: 1.09% Series: 1.29% Series: 1.39% Series: 1.49% Series: 1.59% Series: 1.79% Series: 1.88% Series: 1.98% Series: 2.18% Series: 2.28% Series: 2.38% Series: 2.58% Series: 2.68% Series: 2.88% Series: 2.98% Series: 3.08% Series: 3.27% Series: 3.37% Series: 3.57% Series: 3.67% Series: 3.87% Series: 4.07% Series: 4.17% Series: 4.37% Series: 4.46% Series: 4.66% Series: 4.76% Series: 4.96% Series: 5.16% Series: 5.26% Series: 5.46% Series: 5.65% Series: 5.75% Series: 5.95% Series: 6.15% Series: 6.25% Series: 6.45% Series: 6.65% Series: 6.75% Series: 6.94% Series: 7.14% Series: 7.34% Series: 7.44% Series: 7.64% Series: 7.84% Series: 8.04% Series: 8.13% Series: 8.33% Series: 8.53% Series: 8.73% Series: 8.93% Series: 9.03% Series: 9.23% Series: 9.42% Series: 9.62% Series: 9.82% Series: 10.02% Series: 10.12% Series: 10.32% Series: 10.52% Series: 10.71% Series: 10.91% Series: 11.11% Series: 11.31% Series: 11.51% Series: 11.61% Series: 11.81% Series: 12.00% Series: 12.20% Series: 12.40% Series: 12.60% Series: 12.80% Series: 13.00% Series: 13.19% Series: 13.39% Series: 13.59% Series: 13.79% Series: 13.99% Series: 14.19% Series: 14.38% Series: 14.58% Series: 14.78% Series: 14.88% Series: 15.08% Series: 15.28% Series: 15.48% Series: 15.67% Series: 15.87% Series: 16.07% Series: 16.27% Series: 16.57% Series: 16.77% Series: 16.96% Series: 17.16% Series: 17.36% Series: 17.56% Series: 17.76% Series: 17.96% Series: 18.15% Series: 18.35% Series: 18.55% Series: 18.75% Series: 18.95% Series: 19.15% Series: 19.35% Series: 19.54% Series: 19.74% Series: 19.94% Series: 20.14% Series: 20.44% Series: 20.63% Series: 20.83% Series: 21.03% Series: 21.23% Series: 21.43% Series: 21.63% Series: 21.83% Series: 22.02% Series: 22.32% Series: 22.52% Series: 22.72% Series: 22.92% Series: 23.12% Series: 23.31% Series: 23.51% Series: 23.71% Series: 24.01% Series: 24.21% Series: 24.40% Series: 24.60% Series: 24.80% Series: 25.00% Series: 25.30% Series: 25.50% Series: 25.69% Series: 25.89% Series: 26.09% Series: 26.29% Series: 26.59% Series: 26.79% Series: 26.98% Series: 27.18% Series: 27.38% Series: 27.68% Series: 27.88% Series: 28.08% Series: 28.27% Series: 28.47% Series: 28.77% Series: 28.97% Series: 29.17% Series: 29.37% Series: 29.56% Series: 29.86% Series: 30.06% Series: 30.26% Series: 30.46% Series: 30.75% Series: 30.95% Series: 31.15% Series: 31.35% Series: 31.65% Series: 31.85% Series: 32.04% Series: 32.24% Series: 32.54% Series: 32.74% Series: 32.94% Series: 33.13% Series: 33.43% Series: 33.63% Series: 33.83% Series: 34.03% Series: 34.33% Series: 34.52% Series: 34.72% Series: 34.92% Series: 35.22% Series: 35.42% Series: 35.62% Series: 35.91% Series: 36.11% Series: 36.31% Series: 36.61% Series: 36.81% Series: 37.00% Series: 37.20% Series: 37.50% Series: 37.70% Series: 37.90% Series: 38.19% Series: 38.39% Series: 38.59% Series: 38.89% Series: 39.09% Series: 39.29% Series: 39.58% Series: 39.78% Series: 39.98% Series: 40.28% Series: 40.48% Series: 40.67% Series: 40.97% Series: 41.17% Series: 41.37% Series: 41.67% Series: 41.87% Series: 42.06% Series: 42.36% Series: 42.56% Series: 42.76% Series: 43.06% Series: 43.25% Series: 43.45% Series: 43.75% Series: 43.95% Series: 44.15% Series: 44.44% Series: 44.64% Series: 44.84% Series: 45.14% Series: 45.34% Series: 45.63% Series: 45.83% Series: 46.03% Series: 46.33% Series: 46.53% Series: 46.73% Series: 47.02% Series: 47.22% Series: 47.52% Series: 47.72% Series: 47.92% Series: 48.21% Series: 48.41% Series: 48.71% Series: 48.91% Series: 49.11% Series: 49.40% Series: 49.60% Series: 49.90% Series: 50.10% Series: 50.30% Series: 50.60% Series: 50.79% Series: 51.09% Series: 51.29% Series: 51.49% Series: 51.79% Series: 51.98% Series: 52.28% Series: 52.48% Series: 52.78% Series: 52.98% Series: 53.17% Series: 53.47% Series: 53.67% Series: 53.97% Series: 54.17% Series: 54.46% Series: 54.66% Series: 54.96% Series: 55.16% Series: 55.36% Series: 55.65% Series: 55.85% Series: 56.15% Series: 56.35% Series: 56.65% Series: 56.85% Series: 57.14% Series: 57.34% Series: 57.54% Series: 57.84% Series: 58.04% Series: 58.33% Series: 58.53% Series: 58.83% Series: 59.03% Series: 59.33% Series: 59.52% Series: 59.82% Series: 60.02% Series: 60.32% Series: 60.52% Series: 60.81% Series: 61.01% Series: 61.21% Series: 61.51% Series: 61.71% Series: 62.00% Series: 62.20% Series: 62.50% Series: 62.70% Series: 63.00% Series: 63.19% Series: 63.49% Series: 63.69% Series: 63.99% Series: 64.19% Series: 64.48% Series: 64.68% Series: 64.98% Series: 65.18% Series: 65.48% Series: 65.67% Series: 65.97% Series: 66.17% Series: 66.47% Series: 66.67% Series: 66.96% Series: 67.16% Series: 67.46% Series: 67.66% Series: 67.96% Series: 68.15% Series: 68.45% Series: 68.65% Series: 68.95% Series: 69.25% Series: 69.44% Series: 69.74% Series: 69.94% Series: 70.24% Series: 70.44% Series: 70.73% Series: 70.93% Series: 71.23% Series: 71.43% Series: 71.73% Series: 71.92% Series: 72.22% Series: 72.42% Series: 72.72% Series: 73.02% Series: 73.21% Series: 73.51% Series: 73.71% Series: 74.01% Series: 74.21% Series: 74.50% Series: 74.70% Series: 75.00% Series: 75.20% Series: 75.50% Series: 75.79% Series: 75.99% Series: 76.29% Series: 76.49% Series: 76.79% Series: 76.98% Series: 77.28% Series: 77.48% Series: 77.78% Series: 78.08% Series: 78.27% Series: 78.57% Series: 78.77% Series: 79.07% Series: 79.27% Series: 79.56% Series: 79.86% Series: 80.06% Series: 80.36% Series: 80.56% Series: 80.85% Series: 81.05% Series: 81.35% Series: 81.65% Series: 81.85% Series: 82.14% Series: 82.34% Series: 82.64% Series: 82.94% Series: 83.13% Series: 83.43% Series: 83.63% Series: 83.93% Series: 84.23% Series: 84.42% Series: 84.72% Series: 84.92% Series: 85.22% Series: 85.52% Series: 85.71% Series: 86.01% Series: 86.21% Series: 86.51% Series: 86.81% Series: 87.00% Series: 87.30% Series: 87.50% Series: 87.80% Series: 88.10% Series: 88.29% Series: 88.59% Series: 88.79% Series: 89.09% Series: 89.38% Series: 89.58% Series: 89.88% Series: 90.08% Series: 90.38% Series: 90.67% Series: 90.87% Series: 91.17% Series: 91.47% Series: 91.67% Series: 91.96% Series: 92.16% Series: 92.46% Series: 92.76% Series: 92.96% Series: 93.25% Series: 93.55% Series: 93.75% Series: 94.05% Series: 94.25% Series: 94.54% Series: 94.84% Series: 95.04% Series: 95.34% Series: 95.63% Series: 95.83% Series: 96.13% Series: 96.43% Series: 96.63% Series: 96.92% Series: 97.22% Series: 97.42% Series: 97.72% Series: 97.92% Series: 98.21% Series: 98.51% Series: 98.71% Series: 99.01% Series: 99.31% Series: 99.50% Series: 99.80% Series: 100.00% e = 2. 7182818284 5904523536 0287471352 6624977572 4709369995 9574966967 6277240766 3035354759 4571382178 5251664274 2746639193 2003059921 8174135966 2904357290 0334295260 5956307381 3232862794 3490763233 8298807531 9525101901 1573834187 9307021540 8914993488 4167509244 7614606680 8226480016 8477411853 7423454424 3710753907 7744992069 5517027618 3860626133 1384583000 7520449338 2656029760 6737113200 7093287091 2744374704 7230696977 2093101416 9283681902 5515108657 4637721112 5238978442 5056953696 7707854499 6996794686 4454905987 9316368892 3009879312 7736178215 4249992295 7635148220 8269895193 6680331825 2886939849 6465105820 9392398294 8879332036 2509443117 3012381970 6841614039 7019837679 3206832823 7646480429 5311802328 7825098194 5581530175 6717361332 0698112509 9618188159 3041690351 5988885193 4580727386 6738589422 8792284998 9208680582 5749279610 4841984443 6346324496 8487560233 6248270419 7862320900 2160990235 3043699418 4914631409 3431738143 6405462531 5209618369 0888707016 7683964243 7814059271 4563549061 3031072085 1038375051 0115747704 1718986106 8739696552 1267154688 9570350354 Final digits: 0212109 Running the self-printing Pascal example... examples/self >examples/self.out cat examples/self.out program self(input, output); type s = string[255]; n=integer; var a : array [1..100] of s; i,j : integer; function t(a:integer):integer; begin if a<7 then t:=a else t:=a+11 end; function q(a:s):s; var j:n;begin for j:=strlen(a)downto 1 do if a[j]=#39 then strinsert(#39,a,j);q:=a;end; begin a[1] := 'program self(input, output);'; a[2] := 'type s = string[255]; n=integer;'; a[3] := 'var a : array [1..100] of s; i,j : integer;'; a[4] := 'function t(a:integer):integer; begin if a<7 then t:=a else t:=a+11 end; function q(a:s):s;'; a[5] := ' var j:n;begin for j:=strlen(a)downto 1 do if a[j]=#39 then strinsert(#39,a,j);q:=a;end;'; a[6] := 'begin'; a[18] := ' for i := 1 to 11 do begin setstrlen(a[i+6], 0);'; a[19] := ' strwrite(a[i+6],1,j,'' a['',t(i):1,''] := '''''', q(a[t(i)]), '''''';'');'; a[20] := ' end;'; a[21] := ' for i := 1 to 22 do writeln(a[i]);'; a[22] := 'end.'; for i := 1 to 11 do begin setstrlen(a[i+6], 0); strwrite(a[i+6],1,j,' a[',t(i):1,'] := ''', q(a[t(i)]), ''';'); end; for i := 1 to 22 do writeln(a[i]); end. diff examples/self.p examples/self.out Also try 'cref' and 'basic' in the examples directory. $ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-13 21:52 [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? bwc 2001-12-13 23:56 ` [9fans] Pascal for Plan9: a HOWTO Skip Tavakkolian @ 2001-12-13 23:57 ` Andrew Simmons 1 sibling, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: Andrew Simmons @ 2001-12-13 23:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > >I hope to have Oberon running on Plan 9 someday in the distant >future. > Would that be the full system or just the language? If the latter, there's at least one Oberon to C translator out there. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?
@ 2001-12-14 11:15 forsyth
0 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: forsyth @ 2001-12-14 11:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 440 bytes --]
not really, it just takes time to do all these things and there
are more urgent things to do. i've got a fairly big list myself.
meanwhile, we've all still got opinions about these things.
some of us fitfully post them as a form of displacement activity
when we should be working away at those lists...
actually, i'd probably prefer porting my Pascal compiler
to Plan 9 to working on Inferno's PPP set up but it can't be all fun.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2955 bytes --]
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:14:54 GMT
Message-ID: <878zc6vo0y.fsf@becket.becket.net>
"Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> writes:
> "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote:
> > "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> writes:
> > > D De Villiers wrote:
> > > > No Pascal implementation ? Pascal compiler etc etc ?
> > > Why? What use would it be?
> > It would let you run Pascal programs.
>
> And what use would *that* be?
> Seriously, are there any major apps written in Pascal?
Um, TeX, as has already been noted. I think Pascal is a pointless
silly language, myself.
But still--even if there are misguided people who want to use it for
teaching, the availability of a compiler makes a system more
attractive to those people.
It seems this discussion is of a schema that is very common on this
newsgroup:
A: Why doesn't Plan 9 have a fritz-widget?
B: A fritz-widget is useless.
A: Lots of people like fritz-widgets.
B: Those people are misguided.
A: But I want to use the wooble application, and it requires
fritz-widgets.
B: The wooble application is a bad application.
A: What does Plan 9 have to do the things that the wooble application
is for?
B: No.
A: Hmm.
[some time later]
B: I wonder why Plan 9 hasn't caught on more than it has. Maybe it's
because people reject our brilliance.
Thomas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? @ 2001-12-13 4:25 rob pike 0 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: rob pike @ 2001-12-13 4:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans When I worked in Switzerland I used Pascal on the 7600 at ETH, Klaus's very compiler on Klaus's very machine. It was a fascinating exercise because I learned a great deal about why Pascal, particularly Pascal I/O, is so bizarre. It has to with generalities and even I think a few local specifics of the operating system Control Data installed on this particular machine. When the input is a card deck and you can always see if the next card is $EOF$ (or something like that), the handling of EOF on a terminal is far from your mind and Pascal's nextln and all that almost seems OK. In that weird world, Pascal I/O made sense to me, but in no other. -rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? @ 2001-12-13 4:05 rob pike 2001-12-13 10:27 ` Ozan Yigit ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: rob pike @ 2001-12-13 4:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans I thought the original TeX was written in SAIL. -rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-13 4:05 rob pike @ 2001-12-13 10:27 ` Ozan Yigit 2001-12-13 13:39 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 2001-12-13 19:39 ` Andrew Simmons 2 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: Ozan Yigit @ 2001-12-13 10:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans rob@plan9.bell-labs.com (rob pike) writes: > I thought the original TeX was written in SAIL. you are right. according to the intro in TeX82[1], a complete version of TeX was designed and coded in SAIL in the late 1977 and 1978. [earlier protoTeX by Plass and Liang was also written in SAIL] oz -- www.cs.yorku.ca/~oz | if you couldn't find any weirdness, maybe york u. computer science | we'll just have to make some! -- hobbes [1] TeX82 report, version 0.999, july 1983. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-13 4:05 rob pike 2001-12-13 10:27 ` Ozan Yigit @ 2001-12-13 13:39 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 2001-12-13 19:39 ` Andrew Simmons 2 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG @ 2001-12-13 13:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans rob@plan9.bell-labs.com (rob pike) writes: > I thought the original TeX was written in SAIL. Yes, but that program has no genetic relationship to the current TeX. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-13 4:05 rob pike 2001-12-13 10:27 ` Ozan Yigit 2001-12-13 13:39 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG @ 2001-12-13 19:39 ` Andrew Simmons 2001-12-13 20:28 ` Matt 2 siblings, 1 reply; 39+ messages in thread From: Andrew Simmons @ 2001-12-13 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans At 23:05 12/12/2001 -0500, you wrote: >I thought the original TeX was written in SAIL. > Please try not to confuse the discussion by inserting facts into it. Anyway, it should have been obvious that by "original version" I did not mean "original version". Oh all right, it's a fair cop. The original version was written in SAIL, it must have been the original re-write that was done in Web. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-13 19:39 ` Andrew Simmons @ 2001-12-13 20:28 ` Matt 0 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: Matt @ 2001-12-13 20:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On Thursday 13 December 2001 19:39, you wrote: > At 23:05 12/12/2001 -0500, you wrote: > >I thought the original TeX was written in SAIL. and I thought the plan9 licensing thread was repetitive :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? @ 2001-12-13 1:41 Russ Cox 2001-12-13 1:51 ` Andrew Simmons 0 siblings, 1 reply; 39+ messages in thread From: Russ Cox @ 2001-12-13 1:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > The original TeX was written in a language called Web, which tries to > address some of the limitations of standard Pascal. When the Web source is > run through a program called Tangle it generates Pascal source code, and > when run through a program called Weave it generates an allegedly > attractive and easier to follow version of the program, although I > personally find the resultant programs virtually impossible to follow. Suppose you subscribe to the Kernighan & Plauger thesis that programs should be clear. Then the fundamental problem here is that literate programming provides yet another way not to address a lack of clarity in the program. If a program doesn't make sense at first reading, it doesn't need extra text describing it; it needs a good rewrite. Too often, people spend their time documenting a bad program instead of rewriting it into a good program. It's been many years since I looked at Knuth's book, so I'm not claiming this is or is not his problem. However, I've worked with enough literate programs in the past couple years to know that it can be a problem. On the other hand, if you start with a clear program then I think literate programming isn't such a bad way to make it accessible to a larger audience, especially one that isn't experienced in reading code they didn't write. > It's all described in Knuth's book "Literate Programming", and the program > itself can be seen in the book "TeX, The Program". Knuth gave up the Pascal > version some time ago, and now uses a C version called CWeb. This is not true. As Howard said, the Pascal is still very much there, just converted to C as part of the build process. If you don't believe me, try: cd /sys/src/cmd/tex/web2c/tex /sys/lib/texmf/bin/$cputype/tangle tex.web tex.ch sed 20q tex.p Also, quoted from /sys/src/cmd/tex/web2c/doc/web2c.info-1: % "Web2c" is the name of a TeX implementation, originally for Unix, but % now also running under DOS, Amiga, and other operating systems. By "TeX % implementation", we mean all of the standard programs developed by the % Stanford TeX project directed by Donald E. Knuth: Metafont, DVItype, % GFtoDVI, BibTeX, Tangle, etc., as well as TeX itself. Other programs % are also included: DVIcopy, written by Peter Breitenlohner, MetaPost % and its utilities (derived from Metafont), by John Hobby, etc. % % General strategy: Web2c works, as its name implies, by translating the % WEB source in which TeX is written into C source code. Its output is % not self-contained, however; it makes extensive use of many macros and % functions in a library (the `web2c/lib' directory in the sources). % Therefore, it will not work without change on an arbitrary WEB program. % % [...] % % History: Tomas Rokicki originated the TeX-to-C system in 1987, % working from the first change files for TeX under Unix, which were done % primarily by Howard Trickey and Pavel Curtis. Tim Morgan then took over % development and maintenance for a number of years; the name changed to % Web-to-C somewhere in there. In 1990, Karl Berry became the % maintainer. He made many changes to the original sources, and started % using the shorter name Web2c. In 1997, Olaf Weber took over. Dozens of % other people have contributed; their names are listed in the % `ChangeLog' files. Russ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-13 1:41 Russ Cox @ 2001-12-13 1:51 ` Andrew Simmons 2001-12-13 1:55 ` Andrew Simmons 0 siblings, 1 reply; 39+ messages in thread From: Andrew Simmons @ 2001-12-13 1:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans >This is not true. As Howard said, the Pascal is still very much >there, just converted to C as part of the build process. If you >don't believe me, try: > As regards TeX I'm sure you're right - I meant that Knuth seems to use CWeb for the new stuff he writes - many examples on http://www.cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-13 1:51 ` Andrew Simmons @ 2001-12-13 1:55 ` Andrew Simmons 0 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: Andrew Simmons @ 2001-12-13 1:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans At 14:51 13/12/2001 +1300, you wrote: >http://www.cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/ > Or alternatively, on http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?
@ 2001-12-12 22:43 forsyth
0 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread
From: forsyth @ 2001-12-12 22:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 954 bytes --]
it was intended -- and used -- for more than just teaching, but
unfortunately even the ISO Standard Pascal language does not provide
portable ways of accessing system functions of post-mainframe
operating systems (even interactive i/o might not be provided).
consequently there are a great many dialects and specialised
extensions. Standard Pascal is a small language that is fairly easy
to implement though.
on the other hand, ISO Extended Pascal still doesn't provide portable
ways of doing many of the things missing from Standard Pascal either,
but it's not small. It began as a simple and achievable standards
committee project to add 4 or 5 obvious and simple extensions to
Standard Pascal, to address the most common portability problems
(opening an external file named interactively, for instance), but it
took on a life of its own. (i bequeathed my copy of the resulting huge stack of
paper to the university when i left.)
[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1795 bytes --]
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:50:47 -0500
Message-ID: <20011212215052.F2DE7199ED@mail.cse.psu.edu>
> > Why? What use would it be?
>
> Writting software ! <G> What * use * else...
I've never found Pascal to be particularly useful
for writing software. I understand that it was
originally intended for teaching purposes, but
there are some tasks which are so difficult to
do correctly with Pascal that you have to learn
how to program again when you start using a
real language, like C.
And then there's Basic...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?
@ 2001-12-12 21:50 David Gordon Hogan
2001-12-12 22:54 ` paurea
0 siblings, 1 reply; 39+ messages in thread
From: David Gordon Hogan @ 2001-12-12 21:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> > Why? What use would it be?
>
> Writting software ! <G> What * use * else...
I've never found Pascal to be particularly useful
for writing software. I understand that it was
originally intended for teaching purposes, but
there are some tasks which are so difficult to
do correctly with Pascal that you have to learn
how to program again when you start using a
real language, like C.
And then there's Basic...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-12 21:50 David Gordon Hogan @ 2001-12-12 22:54 ` paurea 2001-12-12 23:16 ` Howard Trickey ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: paurea @ 2001-12-12 22:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans David Gordon Hogan writes: > From: David Gordon Hogan <dhog@plan9.bell-labs.com> > Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? > Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:50:47 -0500 > > > > Why? What use would it be? Isn't TeX written in pascal?. -- Saludos, Gorka "Curiosity sKilled the cat" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-12 22:54 ` paurea @ 2001-12-12 23:16 ` Howard Trickey 2001-12-12 23:23 ` Dan Cross ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: Howard Trickey @ 2001-12-12 23:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: paurea, 9fans > Isn't TeX written in pascal?. yeah, except that Knuth used an extension --- an "others" clause in case statements --- that made it hard to port to Unix (I did the initial port by hacking the pascal compiler; now the pascal is converted to C). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-12 22:54 ` paurea 2001-12-12 23:16 ` Howard Trickey @ 2001-12-12 23:23 ` Dan Cross 2001-12-13 0:55 ` Andrew Simmons 2001-12-13 11:54 ` Boyd Roberts 3 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: Dan Cross @ 2001-12-12 23:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans In article <15383.57358.576253.432383@nanonic.hilbert.space> you write: >Isn't TeX written in pascal?. Not exactly; TeX is written in a literate programming language that looks a lot like Pascal, but is not, in fact, Pascal. Pascal shares a lot with the other so called Algol-derived languages, particularly in the area of syntax. - Dan C. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-12 22:54 ` paurea 2001-12-12 23:16 ` Howard Trickey 2001-12-12 23:23 ` Dan Cross @ 2001-12-13 0:55 ` Andrew Simmons 2001-12-13 11:54 ` Boyd Roberts 3 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: Andrew Simmons @ 2001-12-13 0:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > >Isn't TeX written in pascal?. >-- > The original TeX was written in a language called Web, which tries to address some of the limitations of standard Pascal. When the Web source is run through a program called Tangle it generates Pascal source code, and when run through a program called Weave it generates an allegedly attractive and easier to follow version of the program, although I personally find the resultant programs virtually impossible to follow. It's all described in Knuth's book "Literate Programming", and the program itself can be seen in the book "TeX, The Program". Knuth gave up the Pascal version some time ago, and now uses a C version called CWeb. A lot of Macintosh software used to be written in Pascal, which probably is not a recommendation around here, but C & C++ seem to have almost taken over now. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-12 22:54 ` paurea ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2001-12-13 0:55 ` Andrew Simmons @ 2001-12-13 11:54 ` Boyd Roberts 3 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: Boyd Roberts @ 2001-12-13 11:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > Isn't TeX written in pascal?. More or less (there is a thing called web involved too IIRC), but that comment just about sums it up. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Plan9 Programming languages ! @ 2001-12-06 17:13 D De Villiers 2001-12-10 10:01 ` [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? D De Villiers 0 siblings, 1 reply; 39+ messages in thread From: D De Villiers @ 2001-12-06 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans Hello! I just got my first copy of Plan9 - I am a software developer/programmer and wanna know what languages are there avialable for Plan9 development? Any Delphi/Pascal, Java, Perl implementation etc ? (only know about C language). Regards, Lennie De Villiers --- Remove ~ and 9s from e-mail address to reply --- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-06 17:13 [9fans] Plan9 Programming languages ! D De Villiers @ 2001-12-10 10:01 ` D De Villiers 2001-12-11 10:07 ` Douglas A. Gwyn 2002-01-02 10:04 ` kim kubik 0 siblings, 2 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: D De Villiers @ 2001-12-10 10:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans No Pascal implementation ? Pascal compiler etc etc ? Regards, Lennie De Villiers --- Remove ~ and 9s from e-mail address to reply --- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-10 10:01 ` [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? D De Villiers @ 2001-12-11 10:07 ` Douglas A. Gwyn 2001-12-12 9:48 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 2001-12-12 17:12 ` D De Villiers 2002-01-02 10:04 ` kim kubik 1 sibling, 2 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: Douglas A. Gwyn @ 2001-12-11 10:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans D De Villiers wrote: > No Pascal implementation ? Pascal compiler etc etc ? Why? What use would it be? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-11 10:07 ` Douglas A. Gwyn @ 2001-12-12 9:48 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 2001-12-13 10:26 ` Douglas A. Gwyn 2001-12-12 17:12 ` D De Villiers 1 sibling, 1 reply; 39+ messages in thread From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG @ 2001-12-12 9:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> writes: > D De Villiers wrote: > > No Pascal implementation ? Pascal compiler etc etc ? > > Why? What use would it be? It would let you run Pascal programs. (No wonder Plan 9 hasn't caught on, with such simple things not noticed. ;)) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-12 9:48 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG @ 2001-12-13 10:26 ` Douglas A. Gwyn 2001-12-13 12:04 ` Wladimir Mutel ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: Douglas A. Gwyn @ 2001-12-13 10:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote: > "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> writes: > > D De Villiers wrote: > > > No Pascal implementation ? Pascal compiler etc etc ? > > Why? What use would it be? > It would let you run Pascal programs. And what use would *that* be? Seriously, are there any major apps written in Pascal? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-13 10:26 ` Douglas A. Gwyn @ 2001-12-13 12:04 ` Wladimir Mutel 2001-12-14 10:15 ` Douglas A. Gwyn 2001-12-14 10:14 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 39+ messages in thread From: Wladimir Mutel @ 2001-12-13 12:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans Douglas A. Gwyn <DAGwyn@null.net> wrote: > "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote: >> "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> writes: >> > D De Villiers wrote: >> > > No Pascal implementation ? Pascal compiler etc etc ? >> > Why? What use would it be? >> It would let you run Pascal programs. > And what use would *that* be? > Seriously, are there any major apps written in Pascal? TEX was. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-13 12:04 ` Wladimir Mutel @ 2001-12-14 10:15 ` Douglas A. Gwyn 0 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: Douglas A. Gwyn @ 2001-12-14 10:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans Wladimir Mutel wrote: > Douglas A. Gwyn <DAGwyn@null.net> wrote: > > Seriously, are there any major apps written in Pascal? > TEX was. Yes, but it was ported to C, so we don't need a Pascal compiler even for TeX. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-13 10:26 ` Douglas A. Gwyn 2001-12-13 12:04 ` Wladimir Mutel @ 2001-12-14 10:14 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 2001-12-14 17:04 ` Douglas A. Gwyn 2001-12-14 17:37 ` D De Villiers 2001-12-17 10:14 ` Daniel Warmuth 3 siblings, 1 reply; 39+ messages in thread From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG @ 2001-12-14 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> writes: > "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote: > > "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> writes: > > > D De Villiers wrote: > > > > No Pascal implementation ? Pascal compiler etc etc ? > > > Why? What use would it be? > > It would let you run Pascal programs. > > And what use would *that* be? > Seriously, are there any major apps written in Pascal? Um, TeX, as has already been noted. I think Pascal is a pointless silly language, myself. But still--even if there are misguided people who want to use it for teaching, the availability of a compiler makes a system more attractive to those people. It seems this discussion is of a schema that is very common on this newsgroup: A: Why doesn't Plan 9 have a fritz-widget? B: A fritz-widget is useless. A: Lots of people like fritz-widgets. B: Those people are misguided. A: But I want to use the wooble application, and it requires fritz-widgets. B: The wooble application is a bad application. A: What does Plan 9 have to do the things that the wooble application is for? B: No. A: Hmm. [some time later] B: I wonder why Plan 9 hasn't caught on more than it has. Maybe it's because people reject our brilliance. Thomas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-14 10:14 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG @ 2001-12-14 17:04 ` Douglas A. Gwyn 2001-12-17 10:15 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 0 siblings, 1 reply; 39+ messages in thread From: Douglas A. Gwyn @ 2001-12-14 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote: > B: I wonder why Plan 9 hasn't caught on more than it has. > Maybe it's because people reject our brilliance. I frankly don't want Plan 9 to become market-driven. Better a good set of well-designed tools to do those things that are worth doing than an inferior set of poorly designed tools to do things that ought not to be done. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-14 17:04 ` Douglas A. Gwyn @ 2001-12-17 10:15 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 0 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG @ 2001-12-17 10:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> writes: > "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote: > > B: I wonder why Plan 9 hasn't caught on more than it has. > > Maybe it's because people reject our brilliance. > > I frankly don't want Plan 9 to become market-driven. > Better a good set of well-designed tools to do those > things that are worth doing than an inferior set of > poorly designed tools to do things that ought not to > be done. Is typesetting not something worth doing well? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-13 10:26 ` Douglas A. Gwyn 2001-12-13 12:04 ` Wladimir Mutel 2001-12-14 10:14 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG @ 2001-12-14 17:37 ` D De Villiers 2001-12-17 10:14 ` Daniel Warmuth 3 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: D De Villiers @ 2001-12-14 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans There are many dialects of Pascal avialable - The mostly popular one use is Borland's Delphi (Object Pascal) for writting MS Windows applications. Then there are also Free Pascal etc. > Seriously, are there any major apps written in Pascal? Regards, Lennie De Villiers --- Remove ~ and 9s from e-mail address to reply --- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-13 10:26 ` Douglas A. Gwyn ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2001-12-14 17:37 ` D De Villiers @ 2001-12-17 10:14 ` Daniel Warmuth 2001-12-18 17:27 ` D De Villiers 3 siblings, 1 reply; 39+ messages in thread From: Daniel Warmuth @ 2001-12-17 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans Hi, "Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote: > Seriously, are there any major apps written in Pascal? Depends on what you thinks is a "major app" ;-) E.g., Pixel32 is written in Free Pascal (pixel32.box.sk). -- Ciao, Daniel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-17 10:14 ` Daniel Warmuth @ 2001-12-18 17:27 ` D De Villiers 2001-12-18 19:35 ` Matt 0 siblings, 1 reply; 39+ messages in thread From: D De Villiers @ 2001-12-18 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > Depends on what you thinks is a "major app" ;-) E.g., Pixel32 is written in > Free Pascal (pixel32.box.sk). The terms "major app" or "minor app" doesn't really exist ! (both understatements). In Pascal (any dialect) or in any programming language (Forth, Java, C/C++ etc etc) can write both "major app" or "minor app" - These * understatements* only refer to the complexity of the program in its goal to solve the programming problem at hand. The more code you write etc. the more complex the application gets...This is way techique like module-programming, object-oriented programming (OOP) etc. has developed (in all languages) to brake the big complexity of any application (or the problem) into smaller parts (smaller problems). Remember: Those old days when we wrote programs in GW-BASIC etc. Just a bush of line-after-line codes...Reading or understanding those programs was a big challenge (not even talking about debugging etc!) because they wasn't wrote in small parts (routines, functions, units, objects etc). So you needed (at that time) think about the problem has a owl (everything in considiration) but now (this present time) programs are broken in small parts - Easy to program, easy to understand, easy to debug, easy to maintain, easy to...etc. Just may 3 cents ! :-)) Regards, Lennie De Villiers --- Remove ~ and 9s from e-mail address to reply --- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-18 17:27 ` D De Villiers @ 2001-12-18 19:35 ` Matt 0 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: Matt @ 2001-12-18 19:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > Remember: Those old days when we wrote programs in GW-BASIC etc. nope, when I started back in '82 I had BBC basic which was procedural [even had inline 6502 assembler] and I've never looked back. M ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-11 10:07 ` Douglas A. Gwyn 2001-12-12 9:48 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG @ 2001-12-12 17:12 ` D De Villiers 2001-12-14 10:15 ` north_ 1 sibling, 1 reply; 39+ messages in thread From: D De Villiers @ 2001-12-12 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > Why? What use would it be? Writting software ! <G> What * use * else... Pascal has been ported to many platforms - Borland's Delphi (Windows), Kylix (Linux) etc with alot of Pascal dialects - Free Pascal etc. Just wondering if Pascal compiler avialable for Plan9 OS. Regards, Lennie De Villiers --- Remove ~ and 9s from e-mail address to reply --- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-12 17:12 ` D De Villiers @ 2001-12-14 10:15 ` north_ 0 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: north_ @ 2001-12-14 10:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > Just wondering if Pascal compiler avialable for Plan9 OS. > > Regards, > > Lennie De Villiers Sheesh, Is it just me or does did this thread lose focus a long time ago. Look, just because Plan9 doesn't come with Pascal doesn't mean Pascal is a bad lang and has no use for implementation. Pascal, like any other programming language, is an tool that makes operating system use more satisfying for the user of that language. If _you_ want Pascal on Plan9 then why don't _you_ take the time to port it to Plan9? Not to sound rude, but, this is simply a reality. People wanted Pascal on Linux yet no core Linux team thought it necessary until Kylix came about. *Shrug*. If the core OS team doesn't use a proglang its most likely not to be implemented in the core distribution. Pascal just happens to fit that category :) - north_ http://blessedchildren.virtualave.net/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2001-12-10 10:01 ` [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? D De Villiers 2001-12-11 10:07 ` Douglas A. Gwyn @ 2002-01-02 10:04 ` kim kubik 2002-01-02 11:12 ` mark powers ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: kim kubik @ 2002-01-02 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans D De Villiers wrote: > > No Pascal implementation ? Pascal compiler etc etc ? > My (admittedly weak) memory is that there existed at one time a very short tome entitled something like "Why Pascal Is Not My Favorite Programming Language" and was part of the Bell Labs Technical Reports. But then I remember things that never existed and have forgotten most of what little I did know . . . - kim ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2002-01-02 10:04 ` kim kubik @ 2002-01-02 11:12 ` mark powers 2002-01-02 11:22 ` Jon Snader 2002-01-02 11:31 ` Ralph Corderoy 2 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: mark powers @ 2002-01-02 11:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans in article <3C23EA53.BC3FBFD9@jps.net>, kim kubik <chaotrope@jps.net> sez ... |D De Villiers wrote: |> |> No Pascal implementation ? Pascal compiler etc etc ? |> | |My (admittedly weak) memory is that there existed |at one time a very short tome entitled something |like "Why Pascal Is Not My Favorite Programming |Language" and was part of the Bell Labs Technical |Reports. | http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cstr/100.ps.gz "Why Pascal Is Not My Favorite Programming Language", Brian Kernighan, 1981 |But then I remember things that never existed and |have forgotten most of what little I did know . . . | | - kim ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2002-01-02 10:04 ` kim kubik 2002-01-02 11:12 ` mark powers @ 2002-01-02 11:22 ` Jon Snader 2002-01-02 11:31 ` Ralph Corderoy 2 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: Jon Snader @ 2002-01-02 11:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 10:04:58AM +0000, kim kubik wrote: > D De Villiers wrote: > > > > No Pascal implementation ? Pascal compiler etc etc ? > > > > My (admittedly weak) memory is that there existed > at one time a very short tome entitled something > like "Why Pascal Is Not My Favorite Programming > Language" and was part of the Bell Labs Technical > Reports. > http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cstr/100.ps.gz Jon Snader ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? 2002-01-02 10:04 ` kim kubik 2002-01-02 11:12 ` mark powers 2002-01-02 11:22 ` Jon Snader @ 2002-01-02 11:31 ` Ralph Corderoy 2 siblings, 0 replies; 39+ messages in thread From: Ralph Corderoy @ 2002-01-02 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > My (admittedly weak) memory is that there existed at one time a very > short tome entitled something like "Why Pascal Is Not My Favorite > Programming Language" and was part of the Bell Labs Technical > Reports. http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/bwk/index.html http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cstr/100.ps.gz Cheers, Ralph. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 39+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-01-02 11:31 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 39+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2001-12-13 21:52 [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? bwc 2001-12-13 23:56 ` [9fans] Pascal for Plan9: a HOWTO Skip Tavakkolian 2001-12-13 23:57 ` [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? Andrew Simmons -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2001-12-14 11:15 forsyth 2001-12-13 4:25 rob pike 2001-12-13 4:05 rob pike 2001-12-13 10:27 ` Ozan Yigit 2001-12-13 13:39 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 2001-12-13 19:39 ` Andrew Simmons 2001-12-13 20:28 ` Matt 2001-12-13 1:41 Russ Cox 2001-12-13 1:51 ` Andrew Simmons 2001-12-13 1:55 ` Andrew Simmons 2001-12-12 22:43 forsyth 2001-12-12 21:50 David Gordon Hogan 2001-12-12 22:54 ` paurea 2001-12-12 23:16 ` Howard Trickey 2001-12-12 23:23 ` Dan Cross 2001-12-13 0:55 ` Andrew Simmons 2001-12-13 11:54 ` Boyd Roberts 2001-12-06 17:13 [9fans] Plan9 Programming languages ! D De Villiers 2001-12-10 10:01 ` [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL? D De Villiers 2001-12-11 10:07 ` Douglas A. Gwyn 2001-12-12 9:48 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 2001-12-13 10:26 ` Douglas A. Gwyn 2001-12-13 12:04 ` Wladimir Mutel 2001-12-14 10:15 ` Douglas A. Gwyn 2001-12-14 10:14 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 2001-12-14 17:04 ` Douglas A. Gwyn 2001-12-17 10:15 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 2001-12-14 17:37 ` D De Villiers 2001-12-17 10:14 ` Daniel Warmuth 2001-12-18 17:27 ` D De Villiers 2001-12-18 19:35 ` Matt 2001-12-12 17:12 ` D De Villiers 2001-12-14 10:15 ` north_ 2002-01-02 10:04 ` kim kubik 2002-01-02 11:12 ` mark powers 2002-01-02 11:22 ` Jon Snader 2002-01-02 11:31 ` Ralph Corderoy
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).