Talk:Pascal (programming language)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pascal (programming language) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2|
|Pascal (programming language) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.|
|WikiProject Computing / Software / CompSci||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
This is way too long, with recent attempts to 'correct' it making things even worse. Is it even necessary? All programming languages have their fans and those that dislike them, their good and bad features, but they don’t have anything like this amount of criticism that I’ve seen. It should either be pared down dramatically or removed altogether.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- There was an entire page for C, but it was AfD'd into a merge, and all content lost. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC).
I noticed that the Extended Pascal section is just a reference to the equivalent ANSI standard with no discussion on its features, etc.
I'd like to come back on a rainy Saturday and greatly expand the section. Any objections?
I was the X3J9 secretary during Extended Pascal development and I've been a Pascal compiler developer since 1983.
Notability of implementations
The Compilers and interpreters section contains a long list of implementations, mostly not covered in Wikipedia, and mostly with no indication of notability. Google Search finds fewer than 200 mentions of several of them (page through the results to get to the end). Wikipedia is not a directory of software (or anything else). Wikipedia doesn't publish lists. For most of these, there is no third-party source showing that they are notable, but only a link to the software's home page. Under WP policy, all these listings should be removed. --Macrakis (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not so. While we generally only have articles about things that meet WP:GNG, we certainly mention lots of things that don't. They need to be significant to the article, which is a much lower bar. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC).
Macintosh Pascal compilers
I believe that the history of Pascal compilers is deficient in that it doesn't mention the Macintosh Pascals, some quite early.
Upon its release in the Spring of 1984, there was a beta version of Lightspeed Pascal for the Macintosh. (I saw and used this beta in probably April, 1984.) A completed, non-beta, version was soon available. This ran as an interpretter with a very capable IDE including GUI debugger assembly viewer. A terminal-like text window was provided as was a drawing window. Full access to the Macintosh Toolbox was available. This ran on a 128KB Mac with a single 400KB floppy disk drive.
By probably 1985 or 1986, this product was converted to a compiler, keeping and improving the IDE with expected speed increase. Floating point was emulated 96-bit IEEE type. At some point the product was renamed THINK Pascal and got object-oriented extensions, probably compatible with the Wirth-Apple model, mentioned in the main article.
Apple provided a Mac Pascal compiler with Macintosh Programmer's Workshop, MPW. It differed somewhat from the THINK and Codewarrior (see below) compiler. Of course, Macintosh was completely programmed in Pascal and assembler prior to System 7. (Some of us remember that transition, to System 7, as the beginning of an era of system crashes.)
In approximately 1998 or thereabouts a compiler called CodeWarrior became available on the Macintosh, along with a C compiler. It too had a full-function IDE and many found it to be a suitable replacement for THINK Pascal although it took more "know-how" to make work--the Lightspeed and THINK products were ridiculously easy to use.