DELPHI - why oh why Pascal? 
Author Message
 DELPHI - why oh why Pascal?

Dear all,
  Sorry if this has been addressed before.  But why oh why
did Borland choose to base delphi on Pascal?  Was this
because of all the hype that C/C++ is somehow a "difficult"
language to learn?
  It's pretty clear that with DELPHI, Borland have created
a great product.  But let's not pretend that PASCAL isn't
loads more cumbersome than C/C++ when it comes to actually typing
in your own code.
   Does anyone think than Borland wouldn't _completely_
wipe out the opposition if you came out with a product that
was the same as DELPHI but had a C-like syntax?

   -- Simon
_____________________________________________________________________________
|
|  ,_ o     Simon M. Brocklehurst,
| /  //\,   Oxford Centre for Molecular Sciences, Department of Biochemistry,
|   \>> |   University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

|____________________________________________________________________________



Tue, 30 Jun 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 DELPHI - why oh why Pascal?

I'm not sure why you're posting this in the VB group, but it reminds
of the criticism long directed towards VB for using a dialect of BASIC
for its language:

Quote:
>  It's pretty clear that with DELPHI, Borland have created
>a great product.  But let's not pretend that PASCAL isn't
>loads more cumbersome than C/C++ when it comes to actually typing
>in your own code.

Hmm... so you have to type a little more in Delphi (and perhaps VB as
well).  Who cares?!?  If you approach development like a secretary,
you may be concerned with how much you have to type.  If you're a real
developer, you're more concerned with how you design programs and how
the environment enforces that design -- IMO, Delphi does this well.

Quote:
>   Does anyone think than Borland wouldn't _completely_
>wipe out the opposition if you came out with a product that
>was the same as DELPHI but had a C-like syntax?

- C++ is hardly a friendly language for beginners -- read Bjarne
Stroustrup's book for examples of this friendliness

- C++ (and C) have standards defined for them -- how do you implement
properties, message dispatching and dynamic method and property
resolution within these standards? These features alone would
significantly change the look & feel of the language.

A better question comes to mind than the one you have posted -- why
hasn't a tool come out for C/C++ that rivals Delphi's (or VB's) ease
of use?

--------------------------------------------------

VB, Delphi & SQL Development
Vancouver, BC.
(604) 689-2616
-------------------------------------------------



Tue, 30 Jun 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 DELPHI - why oh why Pascal?

Quote:

>   Sorry if this has been addressed before.  But why oh why
> did Borland choose to base DELPHI on Pascal?  Was this

Because Object Pascal is a more powerful language.

That, and because doing "Delphi C++" would've required some language
extensions (ever heard of "properties" in C++?) which would've upset
the C++ die-hards.

Quote:
> because of all the hype that C/C++ is somehow a "difficult"
> language to learn?

It *is* a difficult language to learn. Pascal is more readable,
more self-documenting and more enjoyable (faster to develop something
useful).

Quote:
> a great product.  But let's not pretend that PASCAL isn't
> loads more cumbersome than C/C++ when it comes to actually typing
> in your own code.

No. Let's just say it's a fact.

--
=\

=/



Tue, 30 Jun 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 DELPHI - why oh why Pascal?

?Dear all,
?  Sorry if this has been addressed before.  But why oh why
?did Borland choose to base DELPHI on Pascal?  Was this
?because of all the hype that C/C++ is somehow a "difficult"
?language to learn?
        Nope

?  It's pretty clear that with DELPHI, Borland have created
?a great product.  But let's not pretend that PASCAL isn't
?loads more cumbersome than C/C++ when it comes to actually typing
?in your own code.
        Yep. Let's not pretend

?   Does anyone think than Borland wouldn't _completely_
?wipe out the opposition if you came out with a product that
?was the same as DELPHI but had a C-like syntax?
        Nope. It's simple if you know a bit more about C-compilers
today and the use of C languages.
1. This FACT (let's be brutal) was told me on a programmer's info day
by someone from Borland; Pascal compilers are one-parsers. The
compiler runs only one time through the source code and compiles it.
Just a bit like basic, only most basic is interpreted, not compiled.
On the other hand; Most C compilers are two or three parsers; they
walk two or three times through your sourcecode to optimize it and
compile it. This is inherent to the language, although Symantec's
compiler is a one-parser. This is the main reason why c-programmers
complaining that compiling is s l o w  , and why pascal is a better
candidate as RADtool than c.

2. C is not only used for its speed, but also for its "portability" to
other hardwareplatforms. So it's quite logical that a c compiler
that's interface- independent (at some limits) is more attractive than
 one who's not.

So, i believe a c-language based RADtool would not whipe the earth.
Brownies will, but not c...

?
?   -- Simon
?_____________________________________________________________________
________
?|
?|  ,_ o     Simon M. Brocklehurst,
?| /  //\,   Oxford Centre for Molecular Sciences, Department of
Biochemistry,
?|   \>> |   University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

http://www.ocms.ox.ac.uk/~smb/
?|____________________________________________________________________
________

Greetings, JWK
The Netherlands                 AOPOS Development

(The Man Formerly Known AS Elmer Fudd)



Fri, 03 Jul 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 DELPHI - why oh why Pascal?
Quote:

> Dear all,
>   Sorry if this has been addressed before.  But why oh why
> did Borland choose to base DELPHI on Pascal?  Was this
> because of all the hype that C/C++ is somehow a "difficult"
> language to learn?
>   It's pretty clear that with DELPHI, Borland have created
> a great product.  But let's not pretend that PASCAL isn't
> loads more cumbersome than C/C++ when it comes to actually typing
> in your own code.
>    Does anyone think than Borland wouldn't _completely_
> wipe out the opposition if you came out with a product that
> was the same as DELPHI but had a C-like syntax?

>    -- Simon
> ________________________________________________________________
_____________
> |
> |  ,_ o     Simon M. Brocklehurst,
> | /  //\,   Oxford Centre for Molecular Sciences, Department of Biochemistry,
> |   \>> |   University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

> |_______________________________________________________________

_____________

Simon -
What does your posting have to do with
comp.lang.basic.visual.misc?

Please post your comments to the appropriate newsgroup.



Fri, 03 Jul 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 DELPHI - why oh why Pascal?

 > Dear all,
 >   Sorry if this has been addressed before.  But why oh why
 > did Borland choose to base DELPHI on Pascal?  . . .

Simon,

Why oh why don't you address this in the Delphi newsgroup?
In case you didn't realize it, this is the Visual Basic
newsgroup, and we aren't likely to be privy to Borland's
design decisions about Delphi, even if we _cared_.

 Larry Linson

P.S. My guess would be that the person or people who made
     that decision were "Pascal wonks" rather than "Basic
     wonks" or "C wonks" and thought it was an appropriate
     and desirable language for the product. (You could
     read that, "it seemed like a good idea at the time".)
---
 t SLMR 2.1a t



Tue, 07 Jul 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 DELPHI - why oh why Pascal?
:>
:> Dear all,
:>   Sorry if this has been addressed before.  But why oh why
:> did Borland choose to base DELPHI on Pascal?  Was this
:> because of all the hype that C/C++ is somehow a "difficult"
:> language to learn?

I asked this of a Borland representative I spoke with recently.  The reason
they used Pascal is that Borland owns 90% of the worldwide Pascal rights and
tools.

=================================================================
Carlos Eton

Ehh, what's up, Doc?
=================================================================



Wed, 15 Jul 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 DELPHI - why oh why Pascal?

Quote:

> >But let's not pretend that PASCAL isn't loads more cumbersome than
> >C/C++ when it comes to actually typing in your own code.

If someone (MS or Borland) would come up with a product like VB
or Delphi that used C or C++ as it's base language, they would have
a product would blow the other offerings away.  

Robert McMahan



Wed, 15 Jul 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 DELPHI - why oh why Pascal?

Quote:

>If someone (MS or Borland) would come up with a product like VB
>or Delphi that used C or C++ as it's base language, they would have
>a product would blow the other offerings away.  

Ummmm Visual C?


Fri, 17 Jul 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 DELPHI - why oh why Pascal?

Quote:


> I asked this of a Borland representative I spoke with recently.  The reason
> they used Pascal is that Borland owns 90% of the worldwide Pascal rights and
> tools.

I got the same response, but with the added kicker that because they feel that
they own Pascal, they could make any changes to the language that they wanted,
and nobody would have the right to complain.  Seemed to be kind of arrogant,
but I do have to admit that I have liked their C++ program, unfortunatly I
am require to use MS products.  Hopefully if enough people ask for it, Borland
will come up with Delphi C++.

Robert McMahan



Fri, 17 Jul 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 DELPHI - why oh why Pascal?


Quote:
>If someone (MS or Borland) would come up with a product like VB
>or Delphi that used C or C++ as it's base language, they would have
>a product would blow the other offerings away.

Someone has come up with such a product, it's called Visual C++, and it's
so time-consuming to develop apps in that it has created a market for
products like Visual Basic and Delphi.

Yeah, I'm "macho enough" to program in C++, and don't intend to start
another flame war over which language is supierior, but if Delphi ever
went to a C++ type of language, I think folks would drop it outright.

My opinons only, your mileage may vary,

Mark Alsip



Sun, 19 Jul 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 11 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. VB6 ListView: Why oh why oh why...

2. VB6 ListView: Why oh why oh why...

3. Why -- Oh Why !!!!!!!!

4. Why oh why doesn't this work?

5. why why why why

6. Why why why why?

7. Why Why Why

8. ActiveX wont deploy to Win 2K - why, Why WHY

9. Why, Why, Why!!!!!!!!!!!

10. !Excel/VB: why why why?

11. Why,Why,Why are javabeans completely ignored?

12. Why is Delphi so much better than VB?????

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software