Re: Pascal for IIgs...

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Mike Westerfield writes ...
> 
> ----------
> In article <afklnchxzv5.fsf@dobbs.eng.sun.com>, Charles Stephens
> <devnull@dobbs.eng.sun.com> wrote:
> 
> >Pascal, while a good teaching language, is horrible.  I don't know of
> >anyone knocking down doors for Pascal programmers.
> >
> >C is your best bet in the job world, with Java a close runner up, if
> >not a tie these days.
> 
> In my opinion, which is almost certainly better informed than 99.99% of the
> people who will read this since I use and have written compilers for both
> languages, Pascal is not horrible, and is a better language than C for many
> if not most purposes. Learning programming is one of them. Developing
> desktop applications on the Apple IIGS is another.
>
 ....

     A friend once referred to C as "a brain damaged language". His first language
did happen to be Pascal; still, there is not much question that C is an
unsatisfactory compromise between machine coding and high-level languages.

     When it comes to the best language for developing desktop IIgs applications,
we are not so much talking a Best Language as a Best Language Package. Since the
major learning barrier is, really, learning to use the compiler- debugger- library-
Toolbox package, C seems like a better choice than Pascal because you acquire skill
with one of the current major programming languages.

     You did not mention the new Byte Works IIgs BASIC. I have not tried it, yet;
but, BASIC is, certainly, an easy language. What are the limitations on developing
GS desktop applications with the new BASIC?



Rubywand