From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ef3e78eacf6f938 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Thread: 1008e3,3ef3e78eacf6f938 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Thread: 108717,3ef3e78eacf6f938 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,gid8d81cdf253,gid5b1e799cdb,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Warren Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.modula3,comp.lang.pascal,comp.programming Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3? Followup-To: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:07:55 +0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <4BA8BA91.4050905@cherrystonesoftware.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:07:55 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: feeder.eternal-september.org; logging-data="1764"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18tI40JM3sZvueituV2vHrPwA4WITNaZtE=" User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25 X-Face: &6@]C2>ZS=NM|HE-^zWuryN#Z/2_.s9E|G&~DRi|sav9{E}XQJb*\_>=a5"q]\%A;5}LKP][1mA{gZ,Q!j Cancel-Lock: sha1:L7wGbraCxx9ySReUX5+4t6mtbpA= Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.eiffel:533 comp.lang.ada:9736 comp.lang.modula3:153 comp.programming:14666 Date: 2010-03-24T15:07:55+00:00 List-Id: Patrick Scheible expounded in news:w9z39zqlr2s.fsf@zipcon.net: > Warren writes: > >> balson expounded in news:4BA8BA91.4050905@cherrystonesoftware.com: >> >> > Andrea Taverna wrote: >> >> Hi folks! >> > [snip] >> >> In the past I used C, but now I have decided to change language. >> >> I'm looking for a "better" one. >> >> >> >> Here follow the features it should have, ranked approximately by >> >> relevance: >> >> >> >> 0) open-source support and an alive community >> >> 1) directly compiled to efficient code >> >> 2) statically typed and object-oriented, better if multi-paradigm >> >> 3) general-purpose libraries (possibly standardized, either by >> >> standard or de facto), including containers and some math >> >> abstractions. 4) garbage collected. As an alternative, provide >> >> memory management policies via libraries (e.g. memory pools and >> >> such) 5) optional run-time checks and some kind of control over >> >> compilation and low-level issues >> >> 6) "relatively simple and consistent" >> > >> > Where's performance on this list? >> >> Performance is mentioned in "1) directly compiled to efficient >> code". >> >> > IOW, stay away from the likes of Java, C#, Pascal. Unless you >> > have a >> > very specific reason for going in that direction. Your performance >> > will suffer. >> > Jim >> >> I don't think many people would be surprised by these results. >> After all Java, C# and Pascal (variants) are still largely >> interpreted languages, even if they use some sort of compiled >> intermediate code. > > Pascal is not an interpreted language. One of Pascal's selling points > was that it was one of the first languages that could be parsed by a > simple recursive descent parser without backtracking. > > -- Patrick P-code implementations were. Warren