[9fans] Plan9 Programming languages !

[9fans] Plan9 Programming languages !

[D De Villiers]

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 ---

Re: [9fans] Plan9 Programming languages !

[Matt Senecal]

>Any
>Delphi/Pascal, Java, Perl implementation etc ? (only know about C language).

Re. Perl: Take a look at:

    http://cpan.valueclick.com/ports/index.html#plan9

and

    http://www.caldo.demon.co.uk/plan9/soft/

for a Perl 4 port.

---Matt


----------------------------------------------------------
  There's nothing more dangerous than a resourceful idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Senecal
Northrop Grumman Information Technology
Logicon-INRI Division

E-mail: msenecal@logicon.com
Web: http://msenecal.tripod.com/
Phone: (619)-553-4891

Re: [9fans] Plan9 Programming languages !

[William S .]

I have seen Limbo mentioned before. I am not a
programmer but it might be worth checking out.
Perhaps others could elaborate more.

Bill
Amsterdam, NL

On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 05:13:44PM +0000, D De Villiers wrote:
> 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).
>

[9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages !

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

D De Villiers wrote:
> (only know about C language).

Be sure to learn to program in "rc" langauge as well!

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages !

[Boyd Roberts]

D De Villiers wrote:
> (only know about C language).

Don't forget 'awk' and 'sed' too.

[9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[D De Villiers]

No Pascal implementation ? Pascal compiler etc etc ?

Regards,

Lennie De Villiers

--- Remove ~ and 9s from e-mail address to reply ---

Re: [9fans] Plan9 Programming languages !

[D De Villiers]

Bill,

Far has I know -- Limbo is only use with the Inferno OS (not Plan9).

Regards,

Lennie De Villiers

--- Remove ~ and 9s from e-mail address to reply ---

> I have seen Limbo mentioned before. I am not a
> programmer but it might be worth checking out.
> Perhaps others could elaborate more.

[9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

D De Villiers wrote:
> No Pascal implementation ? Pascal compiler etc etc ?

Why?  What use would it be?

[9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

"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. ;))

[9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[D De Villiers]

> 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 ---

[9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages -- Anyother ?

[D De Villiers]

Any other programming languages avialable ? What about Java VM (run Java
applications in Plan9) etc etc.

Regards,

Lennie De Villiers

--- Remove ~ and 9s from e-mail address to reply ---

[9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

"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?

[9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Wladimir Mutel]

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.

[9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- The Future !

[D De Villiers]

Hello...

According to my opinion - The success, future etc etc. of any operating
system (Plan9 in this case) depends on its ability to be programmed by all
possible programmers (in more languages has possible etc) No Software !! -
No Users etc !!! :-}

Regards,

Lennie De Villiers

--- Remove ~ and 9s from e-mail address to reply ---

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- The Future !

[George Michaelson]

> According to my opinion - The success, future etc etc. of any operating
> system (Plan9 in this case) depends on its ability to be programmed by all
> possible programmers (in more languages has possible etc) No Software !! -
> No Users etc !!! :-}

success is very subjective. the Apollo-11 OS was a fantastic success
given the engineering constraints but the UI was maybe a bit tortuous.

language plethora is a good thing in research space and usually a bad
thing in deployment. my experience is that it massively increases the
opportunity for bad behaviour. GC/VM models, IPC, program-system boundarie
turn out not to be completely abstract but reflect the language of
implementation (is that unfair?)

My brother is a lamda calculus expert. I would find it very hard to
survive in his domain, but I also suspect good programmers would achieve
very very good things if that was the 'one true way'

The Pascal discussion reminded me of my first feelings on the apparent
convergeance of the algol-60 and fortran i/o binding mechanisms. How wierd!
two languages so different yet one apparent method to say how to connect
to a punch or a reader. Then to get Pascal, and have to come to terms with
its bindings..

I suspect any language with i/o or IPC a first-class concept in the language
and not buried under methods or procedure call interfaces would blow my
lobes. rendesvous between asynchronous real-world events, or the emulation
of parallelism in a serial instruction machine and how that exposes to
the apparently discrete programs is a wonderful opportunity for language
designers to play the deity and show their view of 'how it is done wrong'

I hope P9 remains a small-set-of-ported-languages space. I think it will be
better for it. One from the lisp family, one from the interpreter space,
one from the C gang, one for old timers. one shell/rc to bind them. one
namespace scheme to find them.

cheers
	-George

[9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

"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

[9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[north_]

> 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/

[9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

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.

[9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

"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.

[9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[D De Villiers]

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 ---

[9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Daniel Warmuth]

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

[9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

"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?

[9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[D De Villiers]

> 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 ---

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Matt]

> 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

[9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[kim kubik]

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

[9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[mark powers]

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

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Jon Snader]

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

[9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Ralph Corderoy]

> 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.

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[forsyth]

[-- 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

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Andrew Simmons]

>
>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.

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[bwc]

[-- 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...

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Matt]

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

:)

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Andrew Simmons]

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.

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

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.

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Boyd Roberts]

> 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.

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Ozan Yigit]

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.

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[rob pike]

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

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[rob pike]

I thought the original TeX was written in SAIL.

-rob

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Andrew Simmons]

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/

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Andrew Simmons]

>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/

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Russ Cox]

> 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

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Andrew Simmons]

>
>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.

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Dan Cross]

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.

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[Howard Trickey]

> 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).

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[paurea]

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"

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[forsyth]

[-- 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...

Re: [9fans] Re: Plan9 Programming languages ! -- PASCAL?

[David Gordon Hogan]

> > 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...