Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxb!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg From: jlg@lanl.ARPA Newsgroups: net.lang Subject: Re: Path Pascal Release 0.9 Message-ID: <21174@lanl.ARPA> Date: Wed, 6-Feb-85 23:29:33 EST Article-I.D.: lanl.21174 Posted: Wed Feb 6 23:29:33 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 07:39:20 EST References: <8900023@uiucdcsb.UUCP> <20834@lanl.ARPA> <6918@watdaisy.UUCP> Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 29 > > [...] It > > doesn't look compatible with either ISO pascal or ANSI pascal (unless the > > phrase 'standard features' refers to one of these standards instead of J&W > > - I doubt it, some of the 'extensions' appear to contradict features of the > > two new standards). I don't fault the people who wrote this new compiler. > > Concurrent Pascal has been around for ages. It has supported multitasking > for ages. It also was based on a different variation of Pascal, before ISO > standardized it, and before J&W even published the second edition of their > text. So, who's ahead of the game? > Yes I know about Concurrent Pascal - I read Brinch Hansen's book on the language several years ago. In fact, I'm surprised that ISO or ANSI didn't adopt the features of Concurrent Pascal or at least introduce replacements for them. This is just more evidence that Pascal is very resistive to standardization. This even seems to be part of the reason: Pascal is popular but incomplete. Unforunately, the people who extend the language or try to standardize it don't talk to each other. I think this is also why Wirth didn't extend the language himself - his extensions to Pascal came out as a new language: Modula. At least with Modula there was no requirement to maintain backward compatibility. Now, is Path Pascal upward compatible from Concurrent Pascal? Is it upward compatible from J&W (either edition)? These are questions which implementors seem not to ask themselves until after they release their software (if then). J. Giles