Paulo Pinto:
> Now we have to fight an uphill battle with C developers to make them realize
> the benefict
> of using safer languages while fixing security holes every day.
See bugs from integer overflows, for example.
A "battle" that I'm willing to "fight" every day :-)
D is a bit better than
And with it we landed in a world full of buffer overruns and memory errors
exploits.
Sure Pascal was a bit of a pain sometimes to use, but it did promote safety.
Now we have to fight an uphill battle with C developers to make them realize
the benefict
of using safer languages while fixing secur
Russel Winder wrote:
Pascal was never really intended as a production language, it was
intended for teaching programming and the abstract concepts behind
programming. I suggest that in the period 1972-82 it achieved its goals
admirably. From 1984 onwards it was clearly becoming insufficient for
On Sat, 2010-10-23 at 15:23 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
> retard wrote:
> > I can assure you that most commercial / hobbyist users of Pascal haven't
> > used the original Pascal since Moses was born.
>
> I tried to use Pascal around 1979-1980. It's probably the most unusable
> language
> ever i
retard wrote:
I can assure you that most commercial / hobbyist users of Pascal haven't
used the original Pascal since Moses was born.
I tried to use Pascal around 1979-1980. It's probably the most unusable language
ever invented. Every commercial implementation of it had to have a boatload of
Sat, 23 Oct 2010 08:10:50 -0400, bearophile wrote:
> Paulo Pinto:
>
>> I would say that whoever implemented the algorithms in C is not as good
>> as
>> the one who did them in Pascal. Or did not use the proper compiler
>> flags.
>
> I don't know the answer, but I think both those hypothesis are
Paulo Pinto:
> I would say that whoever implemented the algorithms
> in C is not as good as
> the one who did them in Pascal. Or did not use the proper compiler flags.
I don't know the answer, but I think both those hypothesis are not
substantiated by facts, because in the Shootout site the C c
I still have found memories of Pascal (actually Turbo Pascal/Delphi).
Not sure about FreePascal, but I remember Turbo Pascal used to have a better
memory allocator
than C.
In the old days (Windows 3.x) the runtime memory manager has more optimized
than the C compiler
family. Please note I am sp
Walter Bright schrieb:
bearophile wrote:
A question: Here for example the cheapest C program uses 452 KB of
RAM. On average in the Shootout benchmarks Free Pascal uses less or quite less
RAM than the D programs. Do you know why the Free Pascal programs use so
little RAM?
Pascal doesn't use G
Walter Bright:
> bearophile wrote:
> > A question: Here for example the cheapest C program uses 452 KB of RAM. On
> > average in the Shootout benchmarks Free Pascal uses less or quite less RAM
> > than the D programs. Do you know why the Free Pascal programs use so little
> > RAM?
>
> Pascal does
bearophile wrote:
A question: Here for example the cheapest C program uses 452 KB of RAM. On
average in the Shootout benchmarks Free Pascal uses less or quite less RAM
than the D programs. Do you know why the Free Pascal programs use so little
RAM?
Pascal doesn't use GC.
Just a lazy note, don't take this too much seriously.
The Computer Language Benchmarks Game (Computer Shootout) has added some
Clojure implementations, they are not tuned and refined yet (probably unlike
the Free Pascal versions). This is one of the problems ("fasta"), there are two
Free Pascal
12 matches
Mail list logo
