19 Feb
2015
19 Feb
'15
8:40 a.m.
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, John Foust wrote:
Was it the sheer will power and marketing of Borland,
or was
it the volume of developers who didn't need intensive low-level I/O?
I suspect it was Borland's extensions to Pascal that removed any
limitation in I/O.
I think people confuse Turbo Pascal with "standard" Pascal. Turbo brought
a LOT to the table that you simply coudln't do with a standardized Pascal
compiler. Borland never quit tweaking the language - Object Pascal hit
with the 5.5 release of Turbo Pascal and that was improved upon even
further with the 6.0 and 7.0 releases. When Delphi hit the market in
1995, it really blew people away. Had Borland's management not run the
company into the ground, Delphi would be a lot more popular than it is
today. Fortunately they used their last functioning brain cell to spin
their developer tools off to CodeGear in 2007. Embarcadero purchased them
a while after that and have continued to improve upon the product - both
Delphi and C++ Builder.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
19 Feb
19 Feb
9:44 a.m.
Was it the sheer will power and marketing of Borland,
or was
it the volume of developers who didn't need intensive low-level I/O?
Or,
cheap and usable integrated development environment.
My students tended to be intimidated by EDIT, COMPILE, and LINK as three
separate programs to run from the prompt.
'course then I had to remind them an awful lot of times that the
assignment required SAVING a source file (and it had to be the final
version, not an earlier draft) and create an executable file on their
disk, not just test run it in the IDE. I even made them print out the
relevant portion of the directory, and kicked back a lot of submissions
where the executable file and source file did not have appropriate
sequence.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
10:03 a.m.
At 12:44 PM 2/19/2015, Fred Cisin wrote:
Or, cheap and usable integrated development
environment.
I think Fred has nailed it. AFAIK Turbo Pascal had the first integrated development
environment among CP/M software development systems.
Dale H. Cook, Roanoke/Lynchburg, VA
Osborne 1 / Kaypro 4-84 / Kaypro 1 / Amstrad PPC-640
http://plymouthcolony.net/starcity/radios/index.html
10:07 a.m.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Dale H. Cook <radiotest at juno.com> wrote:
At 12:44 PM 2/19/2015, Fred Cisin wrote:
I know the guy I worked with in 1987 loved the IDE. He was one of
those "what do you mean there are different programs to edit, compile,
link, and run?!?" guys.
I got my start with banging hex into TIM then moved up to a 4K in-ROM
line-at-a-time assembler, _then_ got a disk drive and an
editor/assembler environment. Game programming that took over the
machine meant a reset/reboot every code cycle, so an IDE doesn't
really fit into that environment.
-ethan
Or, cheap and usable integrated development
environment.
I think Fred has nailed it. AFAIK Turbo Pascal had the first integrated development
environment among CP/M software development systems. 
10:19 a.m.
On 02/19/2015 09:44 AM, Fred Cisin wrote:
'course then I had to remind them an awful lot of
times that the
assignment required SAVING a source file (and it had to be the final
version, not an earlier draft) and create an executable file on their
disk, not just test run it in the IDE. I even made them print out the
relevant portion of the directory, and kicked back a lot of submissions
where the executable file and source file did not have appropriate
sequence.
My first encounter with Pascal was in the early 70s (pre
personal-computer era). It was part-and-parcel of the "structured
programming" fad that was sweeping through the profession at the time.
Of course, most took "structured programming" as meaning "GOTO-less"
and
nothing more. Others observed that "structured programming" was what
good programmers had been doing for eons. Finally, one of my co-workers
observed "show me a machine without the equivalent of a GOTO instruction".
Still, the corporate design standards group declared that this was the
way of the future and designed their own "GOTO-less" language to be
henceforth used for all utility systems programs--many of which had been
written in FORTRAN.
--Chuck
11:36 a.m.
On 19 February 2015 at 16:40, geneb <geneb at deltasoft.com> wrote:
Borland's extensions to Pascal that removed any
limitation in I/O.
I think people confuse Turbo Pascal with "standard" Pascal. Turbo brought
a LOT to the table that you simply coudln't do with a standardized Pascal
compiler. Borland never quit tweaking the language - Object Pascal hit
with the 5.5 release of Turbo Pascal and that was improved upon even
further with the 6.0 and 7.0 releases. When Delphi hit the market in 1995,
it really blew people away. Had Borland's management not run the company
into the ground, Delphi would be a lot more popular than it is today.
Fortunately they used their last functioning brain cell to spin their
developer tools off to CodeGear in 2007. Embarcadero purchased them a
while after that and have continued to improve upon the product - both
Delphi and C++ Builder.
They did. TP was successful because it was fast, cheap and flexible.
Don't
underestimate the cheap part.
--
Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems: "The Future Begins Tomorrow"
Visit us at: http://www.yoyodyne-propulsion.net
--------
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -- Jonathan Swift
12:13 p.m.
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Eric Smith wrote:
I don't recall Apple ever having been involved with Borland.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:40 AM, geneb <geneb at
deltasoft.com> wrote:
There's no "perhaps" about it.
Borland never quit tweaking the language
Perhaps.
Object Pascal
hit with the 5.5 release of Turbo Pascal
That was Apple tweaking the language. 
12:19 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:13 PM, geneb <geneb at deltasoft.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Eric Smith wrote:
As far as I know, they weren't. But Apple defined Object Pascal, not
Borland. Borland just used the language definition Apple threw over
the wall. Borland tweaked the language in other ways, but Object
Pascal was Apple tweaking it.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:40 AM, geneb <geneb
at deltasoft.com> wrote:
I don't recall Apple ever having been involved with Borland. Borland never quit tweaking the language
Object Pascal hit with the 5.5 release of Turbo Pascal
That was Apple tweaking the
language.
12:27 p.m.
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Eric Smith wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:13 PM, geneb <geneb at
deltasoft.com> wrote:
Ahh. They got the ball started then. It's a shame they dropped it.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Eric Smith wrote:
As far as I know, they weren't. But Apple defined Object Pascal, not
Borland. Borland just used the language definition Apple threw over
the wall. Borland tweaked the language in other ways, but Object
Pascal was Apple tweaking it. On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:40 AM, geneb <geneb
at deltasoft.com> wrote:
I don't recall Apple ever having been involved with Borland. Borland never quit tweaking the language
Object Pascal hit with the 5.5 release of Turbo Pascal
That was Apple tweaking the
language. 
21 Feb
21 Feb
1:06 p.m.
On 19 February 2015 at 21:13, geneb <geneb at deltasoft.com> wrote:
I don't recall Apple ever having been involved with Borland.
Me either.
A rather laboured joke about the relationship between C, C++ and Objective C?
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) ? +420 702 829 053 (?R)
Object Pascal hit with the 5.5 release of Turbo Pascal
That was Apple tweaking the language. 
19 Feb
19 Feb
12:15 p.m.
On 2/19/2015 1:08 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:40 AM, geneb <geneb at
deltasoft.com> wrote:
I never could figure out the point of Objects.
Every data type is different.
Ben.
Borland never quit tweaking the language
Perhaps.
Object Pascal hit with the 5.5 release of Turbo
Pascal
That was Apple tweaking the language.
12:22 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:15 PM, ben <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:
I never could figure out the point of Objects.
The point of objects is to support data abstraction by disallowing any
old random code in a large system from directly manipulating the
innards of the objects, and instead require that to be done by methods
declared to be part of the object.
Every data type is different.
If that weren't true, you'd only need one kind of object.
Perhaps what you're questioning is inheritance, which is useful but
isn't necessarily a required feature of objects. Inheritance is based
on the idea that while two types aren't identical, they may have
similarities. As a trivial example, integers and floats are different
data types, but they both support arithmetic.
12:57 p.m.
On 2/19/2015 1:22 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
Perhaps what you're questioning is inheritance,
which is useful but
isn't necessarily a required feature of objects. Inheritance is based
on the idea that while two types aren't identical, they may have
similarities. As a trivial example, integers and floats are different
data types, but they both support arithmetic.
I think I am, but not math (where are the decimal libraries? Logic fuctions
for decimal machines) but more in the Graphic area. All bitmapped
screens look the same but bigger, yet at the same time there is no
standard to define a modern computer for I/O. Ben.
1:36 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:57 PM, ben <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:
On 2/19/2015 1:22 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> Perhaps what you're questioning is inheritance, which is useful but
> isn't necessarily a required feature of objects. Inheritance is based
> on the idea that while two types aren't identical, they may have
> similarities. As a trivial example, integers and floats are different
> data types, but they both support arithmetic.
I think I am, but not math
As I said, numeric types and arithmetic was only a trivial example,
though there are advantages in treating them as objects if it can be
done without significant performance penalty. Smalltalk was the first
object-oriented system that treated even primitive numeric types as
objects, but Simula-67 did not, nor do many of the more recent
object-oriented systems. Java primitive types aren't really objects,
but by means of an "autoboxing" feature, can be treated as though they
are.
(where are the decimal libraries?
Some object-oriented environments actually do provide that, including Python.
5:35 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Eric Smith once stated:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:15 PM, ben <bfranchuk at
jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:
Perhaps a better example would be a serial port device class [1], which
inherits behavior from a character device class, which inherits behavior
I never could figure out the point of Objects.
The point of objects is to support data abstraction by disallowing any
old random code in a large system from directly manipulating the
innards of the objects, and instead require that to be done by methods
declared to be part of the object.
Every data type is different.
If that weren't true, you'd only need one kind of object.
Perhaps what you're questioning is inheritance, which is useful but
isn't necessarily a required feature of objects. Inheritance is based
on the idea that while two types aren't identical, they may have
similarities. As a trivial example, integers and floats are different
data types, but they both support arithmetic. from the device class.
-spc (But I've never found object oriented programming all that compelling
myself ... )
[1] A class is the definition of an object. Or in other words, an
object is an instantiated (created) class.
7:44 p.m.
>> I never could figure out the point of
Objects.
> The point of objects is to support data abstraction by disallowing
> any old random code in a large system from directly manipulating the
> innards of the objects, and instead require that to be done by
> methods declared to be part of the object.
Well, I'd say that's one of the points. You can get similar effects in
(for example) plain old C by not exporting (for example) struct
definitions.
I don't know what the original point of OO coding was. But I would say
that now, OO is not so much any particular language feature (such as
internals hiding) or any single goal (such as abstraction) as it is a
mindset. I would say that OO code can be written in any language
(well, any general-purpose language; some esolangs, such as Malbolge or
Befunge, are so difficult to use at all that OO is probably out of
reach), right down to assembler.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
8:02 p.m.
On 2/19/2015 8:44 PM, Mouse wrote:
I don't know what the original point of OO coding
was. But I would say
that now, OO is not so much any particular language feature (such as
internals hiding) or any single goal (such as abstraction) as it is a
mindset. I would say that OO code can be written in any language
(well, any general-purpose language; some esolangs, such as Malbolge or
Befunge, are so difficult to use at all that OO is probably out of
reach), right down to assembler.
Now those I consider harmful.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Ben.
8:13 p.m.
On 2015-Feb-19, at 5:35 PM, Sean Conner wrote:
It was thus said that the Great Eric Smith once
stated:
In my practical experience, I'd say the most useful benefit of OOP is the
polymorphism, allowing higher-level code to call alternatives of modules of lower-level
code while only changing the initialisation, rather than having to alter or switch every
call to a module subroutine.
In the typical I/O example, a terminal or a printer or a network port appear as the same
byte-stream paradigm and calling routines. While one can respond we already have that in
UNIX and the C I/O library, there the polymorphism takes place either at the system-call
level or in the ugliness of the C I/O lib implementation (go look inside).
The point being it is most useful to be able to do that wherever ones wishes, in a
formalised manner.
In the 80's, before OOP was a big thing, I developed a semi-formal technique to
provide for polymorphism while writing C code although it was pushing the C standard a bit
(casting pointers, macros, indirect function calls, etc). I was quite enthused as OOP came
on and looked forward to having the ability 'officially' provided in the language
and compiler.
Instead, we got C++. Yup, the polymorphism is there - along with an ocean of feature
bloat, and 25 years later still no one standard for an OOP C.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:15 PM, ben
<bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:
Perhaps a better example would be a serial port device class [1], which
inherits behavior from a character device class, which inherits behavior
from the device class.
-spc (But I've never found object oriented programming all that compelling
myself ... )
[1] A class is the definition of an object. Or in other words, an
object is an instantiated (created) class. I never could figure out the point of Objects.
The point of objects is to support data abstraction by disallowing any
old random code in a large system from directly manipulating the
innards of the objects, and instead require that to be done by methods
declared to be part of the object.
Every data type is different.
If that weren't true, you'd only need one kind of object.
Perhaps what you're questioning is inheritance, which is useful but
isn't necessarily a required feature of objects. Inheritance is based
on the idea that while two types aren't identical, they may have
similarities. As a trivial example, integers and floats are different
data types, but they both support arithmetic.
12:29 p.m.
On 19 February 2015 at 20:15, ben <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:
I never could figure out the point of
Objects.
Every data type is different.
Yeah, but often they are similar... and you can overload them and add bits,
not that I do that much...
--
Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems: "The Future Begins Tomorrow"
Visit us at: http://www.yoyodyne-propulsion.net
--------
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -- Jonathan Swift
12:39 p.m.
On 02/19/2015 12:29 PM, John Many Jars wrote:
Yeah, but often they are similar... and you can
overload them and add bits,
not that I do that much...
Wasn't the original point of objects code re-usability? Objects can
be wonderful if properly designed. But like a lot of other things,
properly designing an object isn't trivial.
--Chuck
2:35 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 8:40 AM, geneb <geneb at deltasoft.com> wrote:
I think people confuse Turbo Pascal with "standard" Pascal. Turbo brought
a LOT to the table that you simply coudln't do
with a standardized Pascal
compiler. Borland never quit tweaking the language - Object Pascal hit
with the 5.5 release of Turbo Pascal and that was improved upon even
further with the 6.0 and 7.0 releases. When Delphi hit the market in 1995,
it really blew people away. Had Borland's management not run the company
into the ground, Delphi would be a lot more popular than it is today.
Fortunately they used their last functioning brain cell to spin their
developer tools off to CodeGear in 2007. Embarcadero purchased them a
while after that and have continued to improve upon the product - both
Delphi and C++ Builder.
ISTR Borland did a lot of 'tweaking' - take a look at Turbo Prolog. It
sounded cool in the marketing literature, but I could never figure out what
it was really good for. When I finally learned C&M Prolog a few years
later, I realized that the Borland product was Prolog in little more than
name and keywords. I also realized that Prolog was in fact very, very cool
and a lot of fun. -- Ian
--
Ian S. King, MSIS, MSCS
Ph.D. Candidate
The Information School
University of Washington
There is an old Vulcan saying: "Only Nixon could go to China."
3592
days inactive
3594
days old
21 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
ethan.dicks＠gmail.com -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
hilpert＠cs.ubc.ca -
isking＠uw.edu -
john＠yoyodyne-propulsion.net -
lproven＠gmail.com -
mouse＠Rodents-Montreal.ORG -
radiotest＠juno.com -
spacewar＠gmail.com -
spc＠conman.org