first word they use to justify using Pascal is that it's "modern". Gave a glimpse at the code source screenshot. No, that syntax is very much the past.
What makes syntax "modern"?
Power matters more than style.
Why use Pascal?
11–20 of 516 posts
Re: Why use Pascal?
#12I disagree with some of their reasons. Modern: Object Pascal isn't a modern language. It was modern in 1998, maybe, but it hasn't evolved much since then. Latest big change was the addition of generics, behind almost any other language. Fast: FPC doesn't generate particularly fast code, and the nature of OP objects doesn't help with locality. It's faster than scripting languages, but generally slower than AOT compile…
> On the other hand, the ecosystem is great.
Hard disagree. I worked with Pascal for about 10 years, and the lack of modern libraries was a source of frequent frustration, meaning we often had to develop the solutions ourselves, or abandon an idea entirely.
Re: Why use Pascal?
#13first word they use to justify using Pascal is that it's "modern". Gave a glimpse at the code source screenshot. No, that syntax is very much the past.
The syntax is timeless, because it is much closer to math than B/BCPL/C heritage.
It has its own issues but overall it is much better thought out than most other languages.
Here is a comment I wrote a couple of months ago with more arguments for Pascal's syntax:
"Yes, Rust does indeed and a long time before that it was Pascal. I really love Pascal's syntax, it makes a lot of sense when you approach it with a math background.
- '=' is for equality only
- assignment is ':=' which is the next best symbol you can find in math for that purpose
- numeric data types are 'integer' and 'real', no single/double nonsense
- 'functions' are for returning values, 'procedures' for side effects
- Function and procedure definitions can be nested. I can't tell you what shock it was for me to discover that's not a thing in C.
- There is a native 'set' type
- It has product types (records) and sum types (variants).
- Range Types! Love'em! You need a number between 0 and 360? You can easily express that in Pascal's type system.
- Array indexing is your choice. Start at 0? Start at 1? Start at 100? It's up to you.
- To switch between call-by-value and call-by-reference all you have to do is change your function/procedure signature. No changes at the call sites or inside the function/procedure body. Another bummer for me when I learned C.
Pascal wasn't perfect but I really wish modern languages had syntax based on Wirth's languages instead of being based on BCPL, B and C."
Re: Why use Pascal?
#14I disagree with some of their reasons. Modern: Object Pascal isn't a modern language. It was modern in 1998, maybe, but it hasn't evolved much since then. Latest big change was the addition of generics, behind almost any other language. Fast: FPC doesn't generate particularly fast code, and the nature of OP objects doesn't help with locality. It's faster than scripting languages, but generally slower than AOT compile…
FPC (if my experience with Lazarus is anything to go by) doesn't even compile quickly - certainly not compared to the Delphi compiler.
Re: Why use Pascal?
#15Why I prefer brainfuck.
Re: Why use Pascal?
#16first word they use to justify using Pascal is that it's "modern". Gave a glimpse at the code source screenshot. No, that syntax is very much the past.
What makes syntax "modern"? Power matters more than style.
All imperative languages are essentially descended from ALGOL, but in the case of Pascal, it also kept its original syntax.
Others have moved on.
Re: Why use Pascal?
#17[flagged]
Re: Why use Pascal?
#18I disagree with some of their reasons. Modern: Object Pascal isn't a modern language. It was modern in 1998, maybe, but it hasn't evolved much since then. Latest big change was the addition of generics, behind almost any other language. Fast: FPC doesn't generate particularly fast code, and the nature of OP objects doesn't help with locality. It's faster than scripting languages, but generally slower than AOT compile…
the greatest difference btw Pascal and C++ is developer experience.
Pascal uses a single-pass LL(1) compiler, which allows you to compile in milliseconds. Pascal enables REPL-like experience where you can Edit->Compile->Run in less than a second.
C/C++ with macros and slower compilation times is worse developer experience, at least it was the reason for me to learn Pascal instead of C and Delphi instead of C++
Re: Why use Pascal?
#19first word they use to justify using Pascal is that it's "modern". Gave a glimpse at the code source screenshot. No, that syntax is very much the past.
That could just be C-style prejudice.
Re: Why use Pascal?
#20I'm finding myself using Pascal for fun these days due to resource constraints. The old release of Borland's Turbo Pascal, version 3.00A, runs under CP/M and provides an editor, compiler, and libraries all under 64k. It's fast enough to use interactively, and produces code that is good-enough to implement low-level utilities, simple games, and other random hacks. I've not used Pascal on anything larger, or more moder…
Turbo Pascal and later Delphi were the first time when a programming language really spoke to me. Eventually, I went the C and C++ route, but I’ve always had a desire to return to more expressive languages. I had no idea that there was still a modern Pascal implementation, so I may just have to get reacquainted with my first love.
I’ve also a had an early acquaintance with Borland TP 7.0 at the time C99 was already around, and Pascal felt rather clumsy in comparison. The strong typing, the lack of a preprocessor, the verbosity in data declarations, the small set of available libraries just made my early programming self consider C superior.