|
P: n/a
|
I really donīt like C.You can write better programs in BASIC than in
C, if you donīt like this language.
I donīt understand how C became so popular, although much better
programming languages existed in the 70s or 80s or 90s.
Pascal is much better.
| |
Share this Question
|
P: n/a
|
"Faith Dorell" <fa**********@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cc**************************@posting.google.c om... I really donīt like C.
Well, then imo you're posting in the wrong place.
You can write better programs in BASIC than in
C, if you donīt like this language.
Then by all means do so. Why are you posting this here,
where by definition we talk about C?
I donīt understand how C became so popular, although much better
programming languages existed in the 70s or 80s or 90s.
Pascal is much better.
Your opinion has been noted.
If you do want to talk about C, here's the place.
If not, then why not try a newsgroup where your
interests *are* discussed?
-Mike | |
|
P: n/a
|
"Faith Dorell" <fa**********@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cc**************************@posting.google.c om... I really donīt like C.You can write better programs in BASIC than in
C, if you donīt like this language.
I donīt understand how C became so popular, although much better
programming languages existed in the 70s or 80s or 90s.
Pascal is much better.
"Better"? Rubbish! Filth! Muck! Slime! Boo! Boo! Boo!
"Better" is purely based on ideological reasoning. http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame29.html | |
|
P: n/a
|
On 17 Oct 2003 17:07:32 -0700 fa**********@yahoo.co.uk (Faith Dorell) wrote: Pascal is much better.
It sounds like "Coffee is better than chocolate" for me
Why trolling when you know that your opinions won't be defended ?
--
--
ThE_TemPLaR | |
|
P: n/a
|
Mike Wahler wrote: "Faith Dorell" <fa**********@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cc**************************@posting.google.c om...
The best anagram for the sender's name I can come up with for now is
"I haf trolled"...
Just about as close as "cody" is to "decoy", though I still would hope
this is coincidental.
One must not get too paranoid... On close inspection, my name turns out
to be an anagram for both 'tiny sad code' and 'I coded nasty' ;-)
Best regards,
Sidney Cadot | |
|
P: n/a
|
"Eddahbi Karim" <in****************************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20031018033053.65a9ac71.in******************* *********@yahoo.com... On 17 Oct 2003 17:07:32 -0700
fa**********@yahoo.co.uk (Faith Dorell) wrote:
Pascal is much better.
It sounds like "Coffee is better than chocolate" for me
Why trolling when you know that your opinions won't be defended ?
--
--
ThE_TemPLaR
That guy must be coming over from Slashdot or something... | |
|
P: n/a
|
Faith Dorell wrote: I really don't like C.You can write better programs in BASIC than in
C, if you don't like this language.
I don't understand how C became so popular, although much better
programming languages existed in the 70s or 80s or 90s.
Pascal is much better.
To: Niklaus Wirth
From: Richard Heathfield on behalf of comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Pascal is better than C
Date: 18 Oct 2003
Dear Mr Wirth
It has come to my attention that Pascal is much better than C. I apologise
for using C for the last 14 years, and for using BASIC and EXEC for several
years before that. (I presume Pascal is better than those, too.)
I would also like a number of other offences to be taken into consideration,
involving (in no particular order) C++, Python, Perl, QBasic (and
QuickBasic), Visual Basic, KMan/3, dBase III+, Java, Javascript, C#,
assembly language and machine code.
I am sure that all my fellow-subscribers to comp.lang.c would like to join
with me in a mass migration to Pascal. I hope you have enough chairs in
your office, because we'd like to get the inside gen on the language from
the guy who knows, before we dare show our faces in comp.lang.pascal. So,
we'll see you on Tuesday. Please have lots of coffee and biscuits all ready
for us, because it's going to be a long day.
Regards
Richard Heathfield et al
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton | |
|
P: n/a
|
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 06:25:12 +0000 (UTC), Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
Faith Dorell wrote:
I really don't like C.You can write better programs in BASIC than in
C, if you don't like this language.
I don't understand how C became so popular, although much better
programming languages existed in the 70s or 80s or 90s.
Pascal is much better.
To: Niklaus Wirth
From: Richard Heathfield on behalf of comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Pascal is better than C
Date: 18 Oct 2003
Dear Mr Wirth
It has come to my attention that Pascal is much better than C. I apologise
for using C for the last 14 years, and for using BASIC and EXEC for several
years before that. (I presume Pascal is better than those, too.)
I would also like a number of other offences to be taken into consideration,
involving (in no particular order) C++, Python, Perl, QBasic (and
QuickBasic), Visual Basic, KMan/3, dBase III+, Java, Javascript, C#,
assembly language and machine code.
I am sure that all my fellow-subscribers to comp.lang.c would like to join
with me in a mass migration to Pascal. I hope you have enough chairs in
your office, because we'd like to get the inside gen on the language from
the guy who knows, before we dare show our faces in comp.lang.pascal. So,
we'll see you on Tuesday. Please have lots of coffee and biscuits all ready
for us, because it's going to be a long day.
Regards
Richard Heathfield et al
<chortle>
--
Alan C
Posts with sigs of > 4 lines, or not in plain text, are dumped by my filters. | |
|
P: n/a
|
Do you really think so? By my mind, you are absolutely wrong. C is one
of the most powerful language around the world (in spite of I was
programming on Assembler most of the time). As for Pascal it's quite
good for educational purpose and nothing else. In C you can do just
anything you want, you can create things, the things, which are not
allowed in Pascal. Niklaus Wirth is a great man, anyway. I read his
book and it's quite great. His Modula-2 is also quite okay, but no one
uses it today. As for BASIC... It's childish, BASIC is a language for
children. So it's impossible to compare this two languages at all.
How come you've got an idea that Pascal is better?
| |
|
P: n/a
|
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 09:24:36 -0700, maths_fan wrote: Do you really think so? By my mind, you are absolutely wrong. C is one
of the most powerful language around the world (in spite of I was
programming on Assembler most of the time). As for Pascal it's quite
good for educational purpose and nothing else.
So you won't be joining us in Mr. Wirth's office then?
As for BASIC... It's childish, BASIC is a language for
children. So it's impossible to compare this two languages at all.
BASIC is an immensely powerful language. | |
|
P: n/a
|
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 01:49:46 -0500, in comp.lang.c , James Hu
<jx*@despammed.com> wrote: [snip]
http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/bwk-on-pascal.html
Ah, in the old days, it took so long to get stuff on the web didn't
it? At least 24 hours as I recall.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- | |
|
P: n/a
|
Sheldon Simms <sh**********@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<pa****************************@yahoo.com>... On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 09:24:36 -0700, maths_fan wrote:
Do you really think so? By my mind, you are absolutely wrong. C is one
of the most powerful language around the world (in spite of I was
programming on Assembler most of the time). As for Pascal it's quite
good for educational purpose and nothing else.
So you won't be joining us in Mr. Wirth's office then?
As for BASIC... It's childish, BASIC is a language for
children. So it's impossible to compare this two languages at all.
BASIC is an immensely powerful language.
To Mr. Wirth's office - anytime!
As for BASIC, I don't agree, why you all love BASIC so much, ah? C is
better anyway *^* | |
|
P: n/a
|
Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:<bm**********@sparta.btinternet.com>... maths_fan wrote:
Do you really think so?
It appears I hooked one. And I wasn't even trying!
No, you didn't hook me at all (don't be so happy). Maybe you'll just
tell me what you like in Pascal?! Compared to BASIC, it's really
heaven, of course. | |
|
P: n/a
|
Trolling ma*******@mail.ru (maths_fan) wrote: Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:<bm**********@sparta.btinternet.com>...
<snip> It appears I hooked one. And I wasn't even trying!
No, you didn't hook me at all (don't be so happy).
Why do you act as if, then? :)
Maybe you'll just
tell me what you like in Pascal?!
The period in "END."
Compared to BASIC, it's really
heaven, of course.
Compared to which BASIC dialect?
After showing that you don't know anything about C and why people use
it, you now don't hesitate to show your lack of knowledge about Pascal
and BASIC. What next, "Logo is better than Lisp"? :)
Irrwahn
--
A bird in the hand makes it hard to blow your nose. | |
|
P: n/a
|
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 05:04:40 -0700, maths_fan wrote: Sheldon Simms <sh**********@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<pa****************************@yahoo.com>... On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 09:24:36 -0700, maths_fan wrote:
> As for BASIC... It's childish, BASIC is a language for
> children. So it's impossible to compare this two languages at all.
BASIC is an immensely powerful language.
As for BASIC, I don't agree
Well you're wrong. How do you do this in C?
10 ONERR GOTO 1000
20 REM Do Stuff
...
950 END
1000 ERRNO = ... : REM Get error number in ERRNO
1010 ON ERRNO GOTO 1050,1100,1150,1200,1250,...
1050 REM Handle Error #1
...
1090 RESUME
1100 REM Handle Error #2
...
Not to mention that you can do anything with PEEK, POKE, and CALL | |
|
P: n/a
|
Irrwahn Grausewitz <ir*******@freenet.de> spoke thus: "Logo is better than Lisp"? :)
How can a language with a turtle be bad? I mean, if you can't see the turtle,
clearly turtle == NULL and you should malloc() a new one ;)
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome. | |
|
P: n/a
|
In <pa****************************@yahoo.com> Sheldon Simms <sh**********@yahoo.com> writes: On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 05:04:40 -0700, maths_fan wrote:
Sheldon Simms <sh**********@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<pa****************************@yahoo.com>... On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 09:24:36 -0700, maths_fan wrote:
> As for BASIC... It's childish, BASIC is a language for
> children. So it's impossible to compare this two languages at all.
BASIC is an immensely powerful language.
As for BASIC, I don't agree
Well you're wrong. How do you do this in C?
10 ONERR GOTO 1000
20 REM Do Stuff
...
950 END
1000 ERRNO = ... : REM Get error number in ERRNO
1010 ON ERRNO GOTO 1050,1100,1150,1200,1250,...
1050 REM Handle Error #1
...
1090 RESUME
1100 REM Handle Error #2
...
This is not a portable BASIC program.
Not to mention that you can do anything with PEEK, POKE, and CALL
None of them being portable BASIC features.
All of these things can be easily done using non-portable C code, as
well: the "program" can be implemented with signal handlers, PEEK and
POKE by dereferencing pointers, CALL by converting a data pointer to a
function pointer and dereferencing it. Unlike the BASIC example, all
these can be done by (ab)using *exclusively* standard C features ;-)
Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de | |
|
P: n/a
|
Dan Pop wrote:
.... snip ...
This is not a portable BASIC program.
IMO there is no such thing. While I believe there exists an ISO
standard for BASIC, I know of no compilers or interpreters that
adhere to it. This is in sharp contrast to C and Ada, where most
compilers adhere closely to the standards.
--
Chuck F (cb********@yahoo.com) (cb********@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address! | |
|
P: n/a
|
In <3F***************@yahoo.com> CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> writes: Dan Pop wrote:
... snip ...
This is not a portable BASIC program.
IMO there is no such thing.
10 PRINT "Hello world"
20 END
The K'n'K specification was a fairly good guide for writing portable
BASIC programs, as practically all the BASIC implementors took it as
the starting point for defining their own dialects. Except for some
mini-BASICs that replaced floating point arithmetic by integer arithmetic,
to be able to fit inside 4K of ROM.
An interesting case is Sinclair BASIC (for the early Sinclair machines,
including the original Spectrum). It wouldn't accept something like
"I = 10", but there was no way to type such an instruction using the
integrated BASIC editor: you could only type "LET I = 10", because the
first key pressed when typing an instruction (ignoring the line number)
was interpreted as a BASIC keyword (the editor was in "keyword mode" at
that point and the K cursor was displayed on the screen).
Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de | |
|
P: n/a
|
"Faith Dorell" <fa**********@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cc**************************@posting.google.c om... I really donīt like C.You can write better programs in BASIC than in
C, if you donīt like this language.
I donīt understand how C became so popular, although much better
programming languages existed in the 70s or 80s or 90s.
Pascal is much better.
Oh yes, and my Mazda is better than your burger. | |
|
P: n/a
|
"Faith Dorell" <fa**********@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cc**************************@posting.google.c om... I really donīt like C.You can write better programs in BASIC than in
C, if you donīt like this language.
I donīt understand how C became so popular, although much better
programming languages existed in the 70s or 80s or 90s.
Pascal is much better.
Damn all of you, why didn't any of you tell me this sooner? | |
|
P: n/a
| fa**********@yahoo.co.uk (Faith Dorell) wrote in message news:<cc**************************@posting.google. com>... I really donīt like C.You can write better programs in BASIC than in
C, if you donīt like this language.
I donīt understand how C became so popular, although much better
programming languages existed in the 70s or 80s or 90s.
Pascal is much better.
I preferred your post in sci.physics.relativity
"atoms are living beings
They are living and if you treat them well , theyīll do what you want."
That had some quirky humour to it!
In fact your recent tour of the sci.* groups is, erm..., odd. | | This discussion thread is closed Replies have been disabled for this discussion. | |  Question stats - viewed: 2928
- replies: 24
- date asked: Nov 13 '05
|
