Re: conversion

[Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org>]

Alexander Kopilovitch wrote:
> Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
>> > Certainly, a chorus tells you that Ada is not C, but what about
>> > Pascal, which has much more resemblance with Ada? Pascal isn't C,
>> > it does not rely heavily upon pointers, but at the same time it has
>> > quite good and usable strings.
>>
>>Oh I remembered when we had to use Pascal in some introductory
>>programming course at the university that there was several machines
>>crashing due to that the students didn't get the pointers correctly.
> 
> Is it all you remember about Pascal? If so that, perhaps, you should
> not be much surprised when other people associate Ada with Ariane 5
> crash only.

I also remember problematic syntax where you should not put ";" in some
cases. This most students got wrong. Anyway it has been 10 years since I
look at Pascal, but I think I should be able to read it.

> Anyway, why you switched to the Pascal pointers from the theme of
> strings?  Pascal is not C, and Pascal strings aren't naturally
> associated with pointers.

No, I was commenting on what was written (se above) about pointer. I
didn't say Pascal didn't have good strings as I don't remember how they
worked now. Must look it up.

> Finally, as you mention those dangerous pointers in Pascal, let me
> quote the "Programming in Ada 95" by John Barnes (2nd edition, 1998),
> Chapter 10, Access Types, p.171 :
> 
> "Playing with pointers is like playing with fire. Fire is perhaps the
> most important tool known to man. Carefully used, fire brings enormous
> benefits, but when fire gets out of control, disaster strikes.
> Pointers have similar characteristics but are well tamed in the form
> of access types in Ada."

Yes? Not sure I see your point with this quote though.

Preben
-- 
Ada95 is good for you.
http://www.crystalcode.com/codemage/MainMenu/Coding/Ada/IntroducingAda.php