May 21, 2007
Jeff Duntemann on the Pascal Language
In a recent blog post, Jeff Duntemann, author, editor, and publisher of countless books, articles, and magazines on Turbo Pascal and Delphi, writes about the Pascal language. A sarcastic comment of him on "that never-to-be-sufficiently-despised language Pascal" triggered a few complains, to which Jeff replied with another post, A Failure of Sarcasm. He talks about his "grudge against the dorks and flamers who waged war on my kiddie language" , complains that the "vast majority of buffer overflow exploits tormenting us these days can be traced to the unbounded string functions in the standard C library", and ends by stating that "in the realm of high-level languages, I have only one love, per omnia saecula saeculorum".
I used to subscribe to all of Jeff's magazines, from the early days of Turbo Techniques to Visual Developer, and I still have lots of copies on my shelves. I have many of Jeff's books. And he keeps proving to be a smart writer on technical stuff. By the way, in the same entry Jeff suggests CodeGear to work on Turbo Erlang. Interesting point. Better handling of parallel computing in one of the next big things. Now if I could have a "parallel Delphi"...
3 Comments
Jeff Duntemann on the Pascal Language
"Why not look into the recent buzz of dynamic" Because Pascal is not dynamic? Introducing those features in a compiled language could be very difficult - if not impossible - or counterproductive. And not everybody is coding websites. "What about functional languages?" IMHO functional languages have yet to demonstrate they could be "general purpose" languages and not "specific-tasks" ones.Comment by Tied user on May 22, 12:58
Jeff Duntemann on the Pascal Language
"IMHO functional languages have yet to demonstrate they could be "general purpose" languages and not "specific-tasks" ones." I believe the same can be said about any imperative language. (In the sense that an imperative approach isn't always the best approach to a problem). Take a look at VB 9 and 10, C# 3 (and likely Java 7), you'll find that these mainstream languages are borrowing heavily from functional languages. I suspect the reason that many people like a dynamic language like Ruby isn't because the language is dynamic, but because it borrows some nice ideas from functional languages (and with a syntax many find comfortable). For a much more interesting (and well designed) language than Ruby, PHP etc, take a look at Scala, a statically typed language: http://www.scala-lang.org/ To quote Doug Pardee about Scala: "Just what the world needs… but doesn’t want: a carefully designed statically typed programming language."Comment by Jarle Stabell on May 22, 23:40
Post Your Comment
Click here for posting your feedback to this blog.
There are currently 0 pending (unapproved) messages.



Jeff Duntemann on the Pascal Language
Comment by Olaf Monien [http://blogs.atozed.com] on May 22, 00:27