$640.00 to fill the tanks...

It's not a high level language. Maybe Pascal would fit.
Hey, don't start with the Pascal bashing.

I was actually saying Pascal was better than FORTRAN, and perhaps a
suitable candidate. Hardly a bash (unless you consider being in the
same sentence as "FORTRAN" to be a bash).
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Roger wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:07:21 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"Grumman-581" wrote in message
. ..


What a lot of
people don't seem to understand is that you can create object oriented
code in standard 'C' without having to resort of C++...


Yah...but...

C++ is just a bunch of object oriented libraries written in straight
C. C++ just saves us the time of having to write all that code. It's
also why compiling 37K of source code may give you a 30 Meg EXE. :-))

Yes, I'd forgot about that. I remember when I was learning C++ and
compiled the ubiquitous Hello World program. The executable was
multiple MB in size compared to a few K for Fortran 77. :-)

I ended up deciding it was easier to leave programming for management
than to learn a language as messed up as C++. It was bad enough
learning C after having used Pascal and VAX Fortran, but C++ was just
too bizarre.

Matt

Roger wrote:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:52:21 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:


Roger wrote:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:21:33 GMT, Grumman-581
wrote:



On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:13:45 GMT, Jose
wrote:


FORTRAN has single-handedly set science back ten years. The same is
true for HTML and the web.

Compared to what else was available at the time, it was good... Of
course, it doesn't have the character of APL... evil-grin


Doesn't have pointers or linked lists either. :-))
The two most difficult were data base design and working out well
beyond any useful "normal form" and compiler design in straight C
before ANSI C when it did little if any type checking and made the
assumption the programmer knew what he, or she was doing. It'd
basically let you do most any thing with, or to anything.

Sure it does. You just haven't looked at FORTRAN lately... :-)


You mean there's something newer than Fortran 77? :-))

I hear rumors to that effect! :-)

Matt

Jose wrote:

It's not a high level language. Maybe Pascal would fit.

Hey, don't start with the Pascal bashing.


I was actually saying Pascal was better than FORTRAN, and perhaps a
suitable candidate. Hardly a bash (unless you consider being in the
same sentence as "FORTRAN" to be a bash).

I really liked Pascal, very simply and elegant. However, it did have
some major handicaps as compared to Fortran once you got beyond
educational-level programs. The major handicap was its IO capability.
Fortran excelled there and Pascal was weak.


Matt

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 01:25:09 GMT, Jose
wrote:
Anything is better than HTML. Of course "better" depends on the use to
which it is put, and HTML is not really being put to the uses it was
intended for. Not being an expert in the internet, I don't have much to
offer as an improvement, but I know a kludge when I see it.

HTML for web pages is a "What You See Is What You *Might* Get" type of
system... For static page markup, it was acceptable, but people kept
trying to beat it into something that it wasn't...

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 01:49:16 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:
I was expecting that. C has held back software development more than
any other language invented. C is what assembly should have been, but
it certainly sucks as a "high level" language.

If you do it right, 'C' can be object oriented... It might not have
all the features of C++, but one could argue that quite a few of the
C++ features are either not needed or rarely used... I like a lot of
the features in C++, but more often than not, I end up writing
straight 'C' since at least one of the machines upon which my system
is executing does not have a C++ compiler...

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 02:04:02 GMT, Jose
wrote:
It's not a high level language. Maybe Pascal would fit.

Gag me with a TK50 !!!

I've done Ada for NASA many years ago and even they eventually saw the
error in their ways and and went back to 'C'... Pascal is not even a
contender... Modula-II is quite a bit better than Pascal, but I'll
stay with C/C++ anyday...

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:01:15 -0400, Roger
wrote:
C++ is just a bunch of object oriented libraries written in straight
C. C++ just saves us the time of having to write all that code. It's
also why compiling 37K of source code may give you a 30 Meg EXE. :-))

That would be if you were linking in the MS libraries... If you write
the C++ from scratch on a UNIX machine and are not linking in any
humongous libraries for a user interface, it won't be that much larger
than an executable written in straight 'C'... MFC applications can get
a bit large... Not usually 30M, but yeah, they are a bit bloated...

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:02:28 -0400, Roger
wrote:
You mean there's something newer than Fortran 77? :-))

I started with FORTRAN-IV... '77 was something that we could only
dream about... grin

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 02:34:57 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:
I ended up deciding it was easier to leave programming for management
than to learn a language as messed up as C++.

Those who CAN, DO... Those who CAN'T, go to management... grin

It was bad enough learning C after having used Pascal
and VAX Fortran, but C++ was just too bizarre.

C++ was originally just a translator that translated the C++ code into
'C' code for compilation by the normal 'C' compiler... Eventually,
they created an actual C++ compiler though... If you look at the C++
syntax and just try to figure out what it would take to implement that
in 'C', it starts making a bit more sense... Quite frankly though, I
don't use all the features in the language... I just haven't had the
need to use them in all the years that I've been programming in it...