Re: simple vs complex languages

Albert Hofkamp <hat@se-46.wpa.wtb.tue.nl> schreibt:


>So imho the Pascal language should have supported the top-down design
>approach by first requiring the main program, followed by the
>functions called from the main function, followed by the functions
>called from the functions, etc.


Why should the main unit ever contain more than only the main code?
All other code can reside in other units, with no special distinction
between user- and system-supplied code or units.


The same for the other dependencies. The declarations come in header
files (C, Modula...) or interface sections (Pascal), and the
implementation must match these preceding declarations. If somebody
starts writing and calling yet undefined procedures, then it's very
likely that the same procedure name is used for different
functionality, and with different arguments, or that different names
are used for the same functionality. Such a misdesign cannot be
prevented at all, but the requirement for declarations /before/ the
usage of any symbol can help to avoid such conceptual errors.




>Pascal is a language used to teach programming, C is a programming
>language aimed at professionals for writing (operating)system-level
>programs.


C was aimed at assembly coders, which should be encouraged to use a
higher level language. This experienced audience had immediately
refused any educational attempt, with regards to both style and
methodology. Most other languages were designed for application
programmers, which have to achieve a given goal without going down
into machine specific details.


>Unlike C, Pascal was written with education as goal.


Education as one goal, amongst others! Why should a language be bad or
unusable for professional applications, only because it /also/ can be
used to teach software engineering at all?


DoDi

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.