Fri, 01 Jan 2010 12:19:25 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Walter Bright" <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
>> news:hhgvqk$8c...@digitalmars.com...
>>> An interesting counterpoint to the usual FP hype:
>>>
>>> http://prog21.dadgum.com/55.html
>>
>> Didn't read the original article, but the one being linked to is
>> completely in line with how I feel about not just FP, but all
>> programming paradigms, for example, OO: It's great as long as you don't
>> pull a Java or (worse yet) a Smalltalk and try to cram *everything*
>> into the paradigm.
>
> I agree, the old programming-language-as-religion problem. I first ran
> into this when I read the original Pascal book, and became enamored with
> it. I tried doing a modest project in Pascal using a pure Pascal
> compiler.
>
> 80% went smoothly, the other 20% spent wrestling with the nanny language
> tsk-tsking consumed nearly 100% of the time spend on the project. I just
> couldn't get things that had to be done, done, as the language would
> shut off all the avenues.
>
> When I then picked up K+R C, I never wrote another line of Pascal. It so
> soured me on Pascal that I never got on the later bandwagons of Modula
> II, Delphi, TurboPascal, etc. Never even looked at them.
The programming-language-as-religion problem exists only in your
imagination. I fail to see Pascal as a religion. I don't know what the
pure Pascal compiler you're talking about is, but ordinary Pascal is just
another procedural systems programming language like C. It has a bit
different syntax ("begin end" vs "{}" and so on), somewhat different
rules for some default data types, but it's more or less C wrapped in a
syntactic mask.
Switching from Pascal to C is like swiching from Christianity to Islam.
Both are strict monotheistic mainstream religions. C developed into C++.
The Pascal equivalent is Object Pascal. Also those are pretty similar.
TurboPascal = borland's brand for their pascal compiler - ever heard of
Turbo C? From Pascal user's point of view: "I never got on the later
bandwagons of Objective C, C++, Turbo C, etc. Never even looked at them."
The languages are no religions per se. Some single paradigm languages are
single paradigm theoretic experiments for a good reason. E.g. how else
would you prove things like Curry-Howard correspondence? (Go ahead - do
it in D..) Those language were not meant to be practical programming
languages. It just happens to be the case that some people managed to
build a real world compiler for them. But of course that's possible - the
languages mostrly are Turing complete etc.
