Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 12/21/84; site seismo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!keith From: keith@seismo.UUCP (Keith Bostic) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: Multilevel standards Message-ID: <25@seismo.UUCP> Date: Fri, 11-Jan-85 19:46:19 EST Article-I.D.: seismo.25 Posted: Fri Jan 11 19:46:19 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 13-Jan-85 08:23:46 EST References: <4859@utzoo.UUCP> <11@mit-athena.ARPA> <177@gcc-opus.ARPA> <7055@brl-tgr.ARPA> Organization: Center for Seismic Studies, Arlington, VA Lines: 17 >> reply to the recent spate of "Pascal >> is a wonderful system language" articles Come on -- let's not start a PASCAL vs. C debate, okay? Read Kernighan, Bell Labs Computing Science Technical Report #100. Pascal in its standard form is simply not useable for anything except cute little application programs. I'm not cutting it down -- I'd rather teach Pascal to freshman than anything else I can think of. But it doesn't cut it in the real world. If you want to extend it, fine. But, then, it's not really Pascal, now, is it? The same argument applies to all the extended Basics out there. You can extend a language to slice, dice and do julienne fries, but it's only good taste to refrain from arguing that the original version did/does all those things. Keith Bostic ARPA: keith@seismo UUCP: seismo!keith