Re: pascal system

["John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.com>]

In article <e64rgt$24ig$1@merope.saaf.se>,
 pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

> In article 
> <nospam-521833.08481406062006@network-065-024-007-027.columbus.rr.com>,
> John B. Matthews <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> 
> .................
> > The UCSD UNIT model for separate compilation was one of the first to 
> > enforce a rigorous contract between interface and implementation. In 
> > particular, it used Pascal's type checking to verify subroutine 
> > parameters. The original Mac toolbox interfaces were created using this 
> > model, and we take it for granted now for large APIs.
> 
> So the UCSD P-system met a fate similar to Algol then: not such a great
> implementation by itself, but an inspiration for future implementations.

I would argue that UCSD Pascal (and Apple's version in particular) was a 
stunning achievement for its time. It certainly included trade-offs in 
memory and speed, but it was seminal in the history of small computers. 
The same can be said for TP.

One might argue that the Pascal language itself met "a fate similar to 
Algol". Indeed, Pascal shares some syntax with Algol. Of course, Pascal 
lives on in FPC, GNU Pascal and Delphi, as well as more recent languages 
like Ada.

http://www.levenez.com/lang/

-- 
John Matthews
jmatthews at wright dot edu
www dot wright dot edu/~john.matthews/