61–70 of 516 posts
Fun fact: I still have my old pascal files on floppy disks in a box somewhere with a not so thin layer of dust on them.
Why? Old languages must remain around for legacy support. However, it's hard to see the point of shoe-horning all those modern features into an old language. I write a lot of Java, and really, almost everything since Java 8 should not have been added. Lambdas, for example, are a kludge in Java. Want modern features? Use a modern language. If you want to stay in the Java ecosystem, for example, you could use Kotlin. I…
Java until recently had less going for it than Delphi 15 years ago except the insanely large ecosystem - which trumps everything else, admittedly. Java the language was misguided in its decision to use libraries instead of language features leading to impressive amounts of boilerplate. Yes, you can do everything you can do in Python, Lisp or Haskell. But, you can also do that in brainf*ck, by definition, so the actua…
I suppose this statement is true for absolutely all programming languages?
You have to use libraries in all languages, all libraries is somehow broken because of using unique way to implement functionality, by using any library you have to learn unique API, etc. etc.
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.
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 bac…
Actually in Free Pascal (and AFAIK Delphi) there are Single and Double (and Extended) that map to 32bit and 64bit floats (Extended depends on the target CPU, e.g. for 32bit x86 is 80bit floats but for 64bit x86 is 64bit floats) since you actually do need to differentiate between the two in practice.
> 'functions' are for returning values, 'procedures' for side effects
FWIW even in Turbo Pascal (i don't remember which exact version) functions could also be used as procedures (the return value was ignored). While in theory separating the two sounds nice, in practice it is often useful to be able to ignore function results.
> Array indexing is your choice. Start at 0? Start at 1? Start at 100? It's up to you.
One additional neat bit is that you don't even have to use numbers, any ordinal type will work. Enums are ordinal types so you can do "type Foo = (Bar, Baz, Bad); FooArray = array [Foo] of Integer;" and then use "Bar, Baz, Bad" to access the array. You can use ranges too.
> 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.
FWIW i prefer the C# approach of being explicit when you pass something as a reference since it makes it obvious on the call site just by reading the code.
Beyond these i agree with your comment.
If so, that's a immediate "no" for me. We know by now that keeping variable declarations close to their usage is a big boost in readability, and at times even in performance (you only declare variables you actually use).
I know Pascal has evolved a lot over time. If this is indeed still a requirement, it's hard to understand why, and a barrier to those used to scoping in "modern" languages (even C99 has this).
I 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…
Is this an assessment by experience or do you have specific performance data, e.g. comparing a set of benchmarks with C++? What's the difference if checks (range, overflow, etc.) are disabled?
I 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…
> 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 compiled languages, even those with GC. You're selling it short. Firstly, as the other poster downthread pointed out, it benchmarked as fast as C++ in the past. Secondly, it's main use is local gui apps, and there's nothing I've seen, includi…
Does this mean it's no longer as fast as C++ today? Do you have specific benchmark results?
Does Pascal still require all variables to be declared at the top? I did a quick search and that seems like the case, but I want confirmation from someone that knows the language. If so, that's a immediate "no" for me. We know by now that keeping variable declarations close to their usage is a big boost in readability, and at times even in performance (you only declare variables you actually use). I know Pascal has e…
Note that in Pascal (FPC, Delphi, whatever) you can have nested functions so this isn't that much of a limitation as it sounds. For example if i have a procedure that is very long i often end up splitting it in multiple nested procedures and each one has its own variable section.
Also from a more practical perspective Lazarus (the most common FPC IDE) has a shortcut key to automatically insert variable declarations so you don't have to move up and down in code even if you have a large function body. I'd expect Delphi to have something similar.
I 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++
No longer the case with the Pascal version used by the game engine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can’t speak about Object Pascal, but the old Pascal was objectively better than C. You can like or dislike the differences in syntax, but Pascal’s type system was pretty solid which can’t be said about C
The way I remember the pascal type system is arrays of different lengths were different types.
Why? Old languages must remain around for legacy support. However, it's hard to see the point of shoe-horning all those modern features into an old language. I write a lot of Java, and really, almost everything since Java 8 should not have been added. Lambdas, for example, are a kludge in Java. Want modern features? Use a modern language. If you want to stay in the Java ecosystem, for example, you could use Kotlin. I…
lambdas are a kludge? Really? You prefer creating one-method anonymous classes instead?