-=> Ennev wrote to Vk3jed <=-
> I find it quite neat, for the most part.
En> Cleaner to read than a bunch of {} %#%$ () () ;
Indeed! :)
En> Maybe it look less compact, but a code is brisk and small no because
En> you typed it compactly.
En> Remember demonstrating that years ago at a job writing the same piece
En> of code in Turbo Pascal and in Microsoft C.
En> We had a decompiler so we could see what both code looked like and at
En> that level it was practically indistinguishable.
Interesting. :)
En> And when you use Delphi the difference in the size of a .exe was
En> dramatic.
Yeah, some compilers were shockers back then for including bloat into their
.exe files.
En> So at the end of the day, it's funnier to support code in Pascal than C
En> or Java. You can of course type less compact source code in c or java
En> but it's up to the developer, when pascal forces you.
I always found Pascal very readable, while C varied.
En> while (number > 0)
En> {
En> factorial *= number;
En> --number;
En> }
En> or
En> while (nu > 0) {fa *= nu;--nu;}
I know which I find more readable! :)
En> it will both do the same thing, but one is so much nicer to read that
En> the other.
En> and once compiled that will end up being the same code executing in the
En> same amount of time.
Yep, something that's easy to support and creates efficient binary code is a
good thing. :)
... When two Englishmen meet their first talk is of the weather.
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
■ Synchronet ■ Freeway BBS in Bendigo, Australia.
|
