Gardens Point Component Pascal [GPCP] Mailing List

Post by Marc Martin
Gardens Point Component Pascal is an open-source compiler which
generates code for Microsoft's .NET framework and Sun's Java
Virtual Machine. The language is "Component Pascal", which is
a derivative of Oberon-2, created by Oberon Microsystems for
their Blackbox Component Builder.

Does it adhere to either ISO 7185 or ISO 10206?

--
Chuck F (***@yahoo.com) (***@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!

Scott Moore

2004-02-21 09:02:26 UTC

Post by CBFalconer

Does it adhere to either ISO 7185 or ISO 10206?

It is neither. Further, it is not REMOTELY related to the language Pascal.
It is in fact, Oberon, which has only a passing resemblence to Pascal,
and is totally incompatible.

I have discussed this MISUSE of the name Pascal in the Oberon groups
before. The opinion there appears to be "Pascal is dead, so we can use
the name", but apparently not so dead that some people don't feel
like attempting to trade in on Pascals fame.

What really hurts is Wirth is putting his name to this. He is listed
as a backer of "Component Pascal".

Post by CBFalconer
--
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!

Chris Burrows

2004-02-23 01:13:36 UTC

Post by Scott Moore
It is neither. Further, it is not REMOTELY related to the language Pascal.
It is in fact, Oberon, which has only a passing resemblence to Pascal,
and is totally incompatible.
I have discussed this MISUSE of the name Pascal in the Oberon groups
before. The opinion there appears to be "Pascal is dead, so we can use
the name", but apparently not so dead that some people don't feel
like attempting to trade in on Pascals fame.
What really hurts is Wirth is putting his name to this. He is listed
as a backer of "Component Pascal".

What a lot of irrational nonsense! For a reasoned article on the evolution
of Pascal through to Oberon see the article:

http://www.swissdelphicenter.ch/en/niklauswirth.php

Chris Burrows
CFB Software
http://www.cfbsoftware.com

Scott Moore

2004-02-23 20:00:00 UTC

What a lot of irrational nonsense! For a reasoned article on the evolution

Fine. How have you addressed ANYTHING I said ? I.e., why the users of Oberon-4
decided to name their completely incompatible language "Pascal" ?

Did you even read my post ? Or is this just the standard "reply to what I
thought you said" ?

Bill Leary

2004-02-24 23:23:45 UTC

What a lot of irrational nonsense! For a reasoned article on the evolution

Fine. How have you addressed ANYTHING I said ?

The article addresses your first paragraph quoted above. GPCP *is* remotely
(or more) related to Pascal. The second part of your first paragraph is
opinion. What you see as a "passing resemblence" others may see as being a
lot closer. I've ported a lot of code both ways between Pascal and Oberon
and found them to be fairly compatible, especially after the nighmare of
doing PL/I to Modula-2 and Pascal to C conversions. But, as they say, your
milage may vary. Looking at the language reports I still see more than a
passing resemblance.

Post by Scott Moore
I.e., why the users of Oberon-4
decided to name their completely incompatible language "Pascal" ?

Actually, I think you mostly answered that yourself. And on that one I
think you're partially right. The thing should be called Oberon-2 (or -3 or
Component Oberon or...) or, better, just Component Builder. The Delphi
people got along fine just calling their product Delphi and only mentioning
that it's language is Pascal-like when pressed on it. I think the other
part of why they've glommed onto "Pascal" is to quiet fears that it's a
whole new language and they won't be able to find programmers to work in it.
It's a marketing ploy more than anything else.

Post by Scott Moore
Did you even read my post ? Or is this just the standard "reply to what I
thought you said" ?

Got stuck on the first paragraph perhaps.

But speaking of the article he referenced, Wirth himself makes an
interesting comment in that article. In discussing why he used Modula,
Modula-2, Oberon and Oberon-2 for the evolution of Pascal rather than the
likes of Pascal-2 or Pascal+, he says:

"...I felt that these names would have been misleading for languages that
were, although similar, syntactically distinct from Pascal. I emphasized
progress rather than continuity, evidently a poor marketing strategy."

If he is, indeed, a backer of the project, I wonder how he feels about the
use of the name "Pascal" for it?

- Bill

Marco van de Voort

2004-02-24 23:50:10 UTC

Post by Scott Moore
It is neither. Further, it is not REMOTELY related to the language

Pascal.

Post by Scott Moore
It is in fact, Oberon, which has only a passing resemblence to Pascal,
and is totally incompatible.
I have discussed this MISUSE of the name Pascal in the Oberon groups
before. The opinion there appears to be "Pascal is dead, so we can use
the name", but apparently not so dead that some people don't feel
like attempting to trade in on Pascals fame.
What really hurts is Wirth is putting his name to this. He is listed
as a backer of "Component Pascal".

What a lot of irrational nonsense! For a reasoned article on the

evolution

Post by Scott Moore
Fine. How have you addressed ANYTHING I said ?

The article addresses your first paragraph quoted above. GPCP *is* remotely
(or more) related to Pascal.

Sure, somewhat remotely related. But how many Pascal compilers do announces
in Oberon ngs? What if all Delphi and Pascal compiler release/update news
got spammed to all other Wirthian language groups, based on that relation,
and in the hope that some might convert? What would you say?

Post by Scott Moore
The second part of your first paragraph is opinion. What you see as a
"passing resemblence" others may see as being a lot closer.

How do you see C-P closer to Pascal than e.g. Modula2, or Oberon2?

Post by Scott Moore
I've ported a lot of code both ways between Pascal and Oberon and found
them to be fairly compatible, especially after the nighmare of doing PL/I
to Modula-2 and Pascal to C conversions. But, as they say, your milage
may vary. Looking at the language reports I still see more than a passing
resemblance.

That's that remote relation that of course does exists, the question
if some minor resemblance is enough to spam Pascal groups. In my opinion
it isn't, but if you see that differently, I'll happily include the Oberon
groups for my announcements.

Post by Scott Moore
I.e., why the users of Oberon-4
decided to name their completely incompatible language "Pascal" ?

Actually, I think you mostly answered that yourself.

It's a choice. IMHO a bad choice, since it only increases confusion about
what Pascal is. Most Pascal compilers nowadays seem to strive for either
the Borland side of things or the ISO side, which at least simplifies the
dialect confusion in a manageable duality.

Post by Scott Moore
I think the other part of why they've glommed onto "Pascal" is to quiet
fears that it's a whole new language and they won't be able to find
programmers to work in it. It's a marketing ploy more than anything else.

However Pascal was already on the decline in '97, and source are vastly
incompatible anyway. (trivial code is always easy to port). Moreover Pascal
also has negative associations (dialect problems, teaching language,
even though I don't necessarily agree with that).

However this is all irrelevant. Component Pascal is way more different from
either Delphi or ISO Pascal than anything else that calls itself pascal.
It's like C# postings in plain C groups because of the C and syntax
derivation in the name. Nobody benefits from it, and c.p.l.m is not really
an announcement group even.

In other words, I think the original post post was cheap advocacy, justified
on a technicality and nobody really benefits from cheap advocatisms
crossposted to irrelevant groups in the long run.

Neither the Pascal-, nor the Oberon (and derivatives) community.

I don't have a problem with regulars chipping in in language discussions in
a group in c.l.p.m and mentioning how it is done in M2, Oberon or Component
Pascal, and even threads that go offtopic while talking about Wirthian
language evolution, the benefits and the disadvantages, but this kind of
announces out of thin air are evil IMHO.

(a c.l.p.m regular)

Bill Leary

2004-02-25 05:14:47 UTC

To save cluttering both news groups with numerous message, I'll reply to the
two replies to mine here.

Also, I'll shorten it to just a few bits. That's not to say I disagree with
the parts I've cut. I'm only responding to the parts I feel the need to.

Post by Marco van de Voort
That's that remote relation that of course does exists, the question
if some minor resemblance is enough to spam Pascal groups. In my opinion
it isn't, but if you see that differently, I'll happily include the Oberon
groups for my announcements.

I was actually only responding to the "How have you addressed ANYTHING I
said ?" comment.

The other issue, whether Component Pascal material belongs in c.l.p.m, I did
not comment on since, while I'm subscribed to c.l.o full time, I only lurk
c.l.p.m. from time to time. I don't have a sufficient sense of the
community there, so I wasn't sure if the ".misc" part meant "anything Pascal
that doesn't fit elsewhere" (as .misc's often do) or if it meant something
else. Apparently the later, as Mr. Moore notes below.

Post by Marco van de Voort
This group is for the language Pascal, as defined by Wirth in the 1970s.

"...someting else." from the reply above. Thanks.

Post by Marco van de Voort
Further, I am a big fan of Oberon in general. I don't appreciate Oberon

being

Post by Marco van de Voort
renamed Pascal any more than having another language named Pascal. Oberon
was a good name, Wirth picked it. It should stand as long as a successor
language is compatible with it.

Yes, quite.

Post by Marco van de Voort
Yes, exactly. I believe that quote is also in the introduction to the

language

Post by Marco van de Voort
Oberon.

The only quote I recall associated with Oberon is "As simple as possible,
but not simpler." attributed to Einstein. Perhaps the phrase is used in
some report or paper I haven't seen or don't recall, though.

Post by Marco van de Voort
Personally, I don't believe he ever backed the idea of renaming
Oberon "Pascal".

I hope not. I'd find that rather disappointing.

Post by Marco van de Voort
Someone decided that it was a neat marketing trick to (re)use the name

Pascal.

Post by Marco van de Voort
I can't control that. But this group is not for propagating this

misinformation.

Post by Marco van de Voort
I created it, it is against its charter that all agreed on. I am sorry for
being dogmatic about the subject, but I feel that strongly about it.

Not at all. Thanks for the history. I thought I'd read the charter for
c.l.p.m. I usually look for the charter and/or the FAQ shortly after I
start lurking a group. I either didn't, or missed the part about 1970 Wirth
Pascal being the primary topic.

- Bill

Izo

2004-02-25 09:08:56 UTC

Post by Bill Leary

Post by Scott Moore
Further, I am a big fan of Oberon in general. I don't appreciate Oberon

being

Post by Scott Moore
renamed Pascal any more than having another language named Pascal. Oberon
was a good name, Wirth picked it. It should stand as long as a successor
language is compatible with it.

Yes, quite.

I can see that another irritating thema appeared to make a little
freshness into the normally dull and rotten "pascal"-ish languages
athmosphere.

I am developer. I have used Modula-2 (Gardens Point M2 among others) for
a long time in embedded. It showed better in praxis than C/C++ and was
available for platforms I've used at that time. I am mentioning this
only to get little credibility here supporting the statement which I am
answering to.

The programming language in theory, as long as not being used in praxis,
is just programming language. When used in praxis, it becomes
technology. I another thread in comp.lang.modula2, only few weeks ago I
have learned for the first time that the Component Pascal is in fact
pure Oberon, following the Wirth spec., with just a few extensions to
fit better into the .NET. When coming to the talks and explanations
about technology used in my projects I would never refer (supposing the
Component Pascal usage) to it differently but the Oberon since nobody
(except my co-workers and Gardens Point language department) would
understand me. So, really no reason to name the language differently
then technology.

Now, the effect of the language naming to me, old programmer and fan of
the Wirth's languages' desingn purity and simplicity, caused just to
ignore the Component Pascal to date. If it was named Oberon, or better
Oberon.NET, or maybe GPM Oberon (maybe it is not designed to fit only to
.NET), I would put it to the wish-to-try-it list. I just did not. Why ?
Because the three technologies (M2, C/C++, Oberon) were just enough for
me at that time and the naming made me think that the Component Pascal
introduced new technology which I simply avoided.

If there is a way to persuade GPM to (re)name their product as
[whatever]Oberon[whatever] I would strongly support it. The current name
is really misleading.

Iztok

Scott Moore

2004-02-25 09:17:43 UTC

Post by Izo
If there is a way to persuade GPM to (re)name their product as
[whatever]Oberon[whatever] I would strongly support it. The current name
is really misleading.
Iztok

Seems to me that "Component Oberon" would have been a good name ! (and
respectful to Wirth's choice of the name "Oberon" as well)

By the way, none of this matters to me technically. I read everything
concerning Oberon, have read and agree with the tenents of component
design, and have done a limited amount of programming in Oberon.
I simply have an issue with A) the name, and B) its appearance here
in the Pascal groups.

Lueko Willms

2004-02-25 16:16:00 UTC

Am 25.02.04
schrieb ***@siol.net (Izo)
auf /COMP/LANG/OBERON
in oyZ_b.5402$%***@news.siol.net
ueber Re: Gardens Point Component Pascal [GPCP] Mailing List

I> If there is a way to persuade GPM to (re)name their product as
I> [whatever]Oberon[whatever] I would strongly support it. The current
I> name is really misleading.

Yeah, but anyway, thanks to the original poster for pointing out
this compiler! Adn to the guy who made all the noise about this
derivative of Oberon not being appropriate in the Pascal newsgroup --
otherwise it would not have gotten my attention.

I have downloaded it -- but I could not find it on a website of
Gardens Point, but the Queensland University of Technology in
Australia.

Here are the URLs:

http://www.citi.qut.edu.au/research/plas/projects/cp_files/
ComponentPascal.html

and for the download use:

http://www.citi.qut.edu.au/research/plas/projects/cp_files/
cpdownload.htm

I guess you know that you have to copy the part of the URL broken
into the following line as one into the address field of your
browser.

Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.mlwerke.de
/--------- ***@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

"Regierung aus dem Volke, durch das Volk und für das Volk"
- Abraham Lincoln, Ansprache in Gettysburg, 19.11.1863
"... was in die revolutionäre Sprache von heute übersetzt heißt:
eine Regierung von Arbeitern, durch Arbeiter und für Arbeiter"
- Fidel Castro, November 1994

jmdrake

2004-02-26 17:34:23 UTC

Post by Izo
I can see that another irritating thema appeared to make a little
freshness into the normally dull and rotten "pascal"-ish languages
athmosphere.
I am developer. I have used Modula-2 (Gardens Point M2 among others) for
a long time in embedded. It showed better in praxis than C/C++ and was
available for platforms I've used at that time. I am mentioning this
only to get little credibility here supporting the statement which I am
answering to.
The programming language in theory, as long as not being used in praxis,
is just programming language. When used in praxis, it becomes
technology. I another thread in comp.lang.modula2, only few weeks ago I
have learned for the first time that the Component Pascal is in fact
pure Oberon, following the Wirth spec., with just a few extensions to
fit better into the .NET.

Actually that's not entirely true. GPCP follows Oberon Microsystems
specs for Component Pascal. These made changes to the Oberon-2 spec
before .NET was ever heard of.

That brings up another important point. Gardens Point did NOT change
the name to Component Pascal. Oberon Microsystems did:

http://www.oberon.ch/

Because Gardens Point used the Oberon Microsystems variation they went
with the Oberon Microsystems name.

Post by Izo
When coming to the talks and explanations
about technology used in my projects I would never refer (supposing the
Component Pascal usage) to it differently but the Oberon since nobody
(except my co-workers and Gardens Point language department) would
understand me. So, really no reason to name the language differently
then technology.
Now, the effect of the language naming to me, old programmer and fan of
the Wirth's languages' desingn purity and simplicity, caused just to
ignore the Component Pascal to date. If it was named Oberon, or better
Oberon.NET, or maybe GPM Oberon (maybe it is not designed to fit only to
.NET), I would put it to the wish-to-try-it list.

Correct. It wasn't. Beside GPCP can also generate Java bytecodes.

Post by Izo
I just did not. Why ?
Because the three technologies (M2, C/C++, Oberon) were just enough for
me at that time and the naming made me think that the Component Pascal
introduced new technology which I simply avoided.
If there is a way to persuade GPM to (re)name their product as
[whatever]Oberon[whatever] I would strongly support it. The current name
is really misleading.
Iztok

At this point if Gardens Point was to call it something else it would
also be misleading since they followed the Oberon Microsystems Component
Pascal specifications. If the name needs changing, Oberon Microsystems
are the ones that need to be convinced.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Scott Moore

2004-02-25 00:28:21 UTC

Post by Scott Moore
It is neither. Further, it is not REMOTELY related to the language

Pascal.

What a lot of irrational nonsense! For a reasoned article on the

evolution

Post by Scott Moore
Fine. How have you addressed ANYTHING I said ?

The article addresses your first paragraph quoted above. GPCP *is* remotely
(or more) related to Pascal. The second part of your first paragraph is

There are only two real points that need to be understood:

1. "Component Pascal" is not compatible with Pascal. Note I did not say "like",
"resembles", "related to", etc. It does not run or compile Pascal nor a subset
of it. As such, I don't expect another language to be passed off as "Pascal",
when it is in no way, shape or form the language Pascal.

2. This group, comp.lang.pascal.misc, is for PASCAL, the language as defined
by Wirth in the 1970s, and dielects of that. Posting about other languages
is against this groups charter. I wrote the charter for this group, I know.

Post by Scott Moore
opinion. What you see as a "passing resemblence" others may see as being a
lot closer. I've ported a lot of code both ways between Pascal and Oberon
and found them to be fairly compatible, especially after the nighmare of

This is not about porting from one language to another, or how neat "object
Pascal" is. It is about the language Pascal as defined by Wirth in the 1970s.
It is about that because this group is about that. If anyone wants to discuss
"Object Pascal", then they are welcome to do that elsewhere.

Post by Scott Moore
doing PL/I to Modula-2 and Pascal to C conversions. But, as they say, your
milage may vary. Looking at the language reports I still see more than a
passing resemblance.

Post by Scott Moore
I.e., why the users of Oberon-4
decided to name their completely incompatible language "Pascal" ?

Delphi has its own group. Oberon has its own group. This group is for the
language Pascal, as defined by Wirth in the 1970s. It is not about Oberon.
Further, I am a big fan of Oberon in general. I don't appreciate Oberon being
renamed Pascal any more than having another language named Pascal. Oberon
was a good name, Wirth picked it. It should stand as long as a successor
language is compatible with it.

I have addressed why I think "Object Pascal" is a bad name choice, and perhaps
it was wrong of me to do this yet again. Now the subject is clear. The name
"Object Pascal" is confusing to readers of this group, and in any case
discussion of a renamed Oberon is inappropriate here. This is a Pascal
group.

Post by Scott Moore
Did you even read my post ? Or is this just the standard "reply to what I
thought you said" ?

Got stuck on the first paragraph perhaps.
But speaking of the article he referenced, Wirth himself makes an
interesting comment in that article. In discussing why he used Modula,
Modula-2, Oberon and Oberon-2 for the evolution of Pascal rather than the
"...I felt that these names would have been misleading for languages that
were, although similar, syntactically distinct from Pascal. I emphasized
progress rather than continuity, evidently a poor marketing strategy."

Yes, exactly. I believe that quote is also in the introduction to the language
Oberon. Personally, I don't believe he ever backed the idea of renaming
Oberon "Pascal".

Post by Scott Moore
If he is, indeed, a backer of the project, I wonder how he feels about the
use of the name "Pascal" for it?
- Bill

I created the split in what was originally the group "comp.lang.pascal", because
I felt that there were too many languages at odds with each other with the name
"Pascal" to be kept under one newsgroup name. This spit passed by popular
majority, and later the delphi groups were started. The fact that the delphi
groups were not placed under the comp.lang.pascal.* tree, a decision I was
not involved with, says to me that the Delphi users no longer saw themselves
as Pascal users. And so we arrived at the current situation, which I think
has proven the test of time.

Someone decided that it was a neat marketing trick to (re)use the name Pascal.
I can't control that. But this group is not for propagating this misinformation.
I created it, it is against its charter that all agreed on. I am sorry for
being dogmatic about the subject, but I feel that strongly about it.

Scott Moore

The originator of the groups:

comp.lang.misc
comp.lang.borland
comp.lang.mac
comp.lang.ansi-iso

Dirk Muysers

2004-02-25 21:29:26 UTC

Component Pascal has been published by Oberon Microsystems. The chairman of
Oberon Microsystem is Niklaus Wirth. So he has IMHO every right to call the
language Pascal whatever he wants. This thread is boring.

Post by Scott Moore
It is neither. Further, it is not REMOTELY related to the language

Pascal.

What a lot of irrational nonsense! For a reasoned article on the

evolution

Post by Scott Moore
Fine. How have you addressed ANYTHING I said ?

The article addresses your first paragraph quoted above. GPCP *is* remotely
(or more) related to Pascal. The second part of your first paragraph is

1. "Component Pascal" is not compatible with Pascal. Note I did not say "like",
"resembles", "related to", etc. It does not run or compile Pascal nor a subset
of it. As such, I don't expect another language to be passed off as "Pascal",
when it is in no way, shape or form the language Pascal.
2. This group, comp.lang.pascal.misc, is for PASCAL, the language as defined
by Wirth in the 1970s, and dielects of that. Posting about other languages
is against this groups charter. I wrote the charter for this group, I know.

Post by Scott Moore
doing PL/I to Modula-2 and Pascal to C conversions. But, as they say, your
milage may vary. Looking at the language reports I still see more than a
passing resemblance.

Post by Scott Moore
I.e., why the users of Oberon-4
decided to name their completely incompatible language "Pascal" ?

Delphi has its own group. Oberon has its own group. This group is for the
language Pascal, as defined by Wirth in the 1970s. It is not about Oberon.
Further, I am a big fan of Oberon in general. I don't appreciate Oberon being
renamed Pascal any more than having another language named Pascal. Oberon
was a good name, Wirth picked it. It should stand as long as a successor
language is compatible with it.
I have addressed why I think "Object Pascal" is a bad name choice, and perhaps
it was wrong of me to do this yet again. Now the subject is clear. The name
"Object Pascal" is confusing to readers of this group, and in any case
discussion of a renamed Oberon is inappropriate here. This is a Pascal
group.

Post by Scott Moore
Did you even read my post ? Or is this just the standard "reply to what I
thought you said" ?

Got stuck on the first paragraph perhaps.
But speaking of the article he referenced, Wirth himself makes an
interesting comment in that article. In discussing why he used Modula,
Modula-2, Oberon and Oberon-2 for the evolution of Pascal rather than the
"...I felt that these names would have been misleading for languages that
were, although similar, syntactically distinct from Pascal. I emphasized
progress rather than continuity, evidently a poor marketing strategy."

Yes, exactly. I believe that quote is also in the introduction to the language
Oberon. Personally, I don't believe he ever backed the idea of renaming
Oberon "Pascal".

Post by Scott Moore
If he is, indeed, a backer of the project, I wonder how he feels about the
use of the name "Pascal" for it?
- Bill

I created the split in what was originally the group "comp.lang.pascal", because
I felt that there were too many languages at odds with each other with the name
"Pascal" to be kept under one newsgroup name. This spit passed by popular
majority, and later the delphi groups were started. The fact that the delphi
groups were not placed under the comp.lang.pascal.* tree, a decision I was
not involved with, says to me that the Delphi users no longer saw themselves
as Pascal users. And so we arrived at the current situation, which I think
has proven the test of time.
Someone decided that it was a neat marketing trick to (re)use the name Pascal.
I can't control that. But this group is not for propagating this misinformation.
I created it, it is against its charter that all agreed on. I am sorry for
being dogmatic about the subject, but I feel that strongly about it.
Scott Moore
comp.lang.misc
comp.lang.borland
comp.lang.mac
comp.lang.ansi-iso

Scott Moore

2004-02-26 00:41:18 UTC

Post by Dirk Muysers
Component Pascal has been published by Oberon Microsystems. The chairman of
Oberon Microsystem is Niklaus Wirth. So he has IMHO every right to call the
language Pascal whatever he wants. This thread is boring.

So Xerox is free to rename copiers the "dupogizmo" ? It just does not work like
that.

jmdrake

2004-02-26 16:43:17 UTC

So Xerox is free to rename copiers the "dupogizmo" ? It just does not work like
that.

Actually they are free to do that. Now whether or not anyone would pay any
attention is another story.

I agree that "Component Pascal" isn't a good name. The original name was
"Oberon/F". Back then it was completely compatible with the Oberon 2
language. Then there came the announcement (leak?) from ETH that a new
version of Oberon dubbed "Active Oberon" was coming out which broke
Oberon 2 compatibility. (Still compatible with Oberon-1). At the
same time Oberon Microsystems (the guys behind Oberon/F and Component
Pascal) were considering changes of their own that also broke
compatibility but were closer Oberon-2 than Active Oberon. (I'm not
sure if Oberon-1 compatibility was strictly maintained though).

Anyway it was clearly a marketting decision. I recal Prof. Wirth
once saying that perhaps Modula and Oberon would have caught on
better if Pascal had been in the name. Of course C++ wasn't simply
similair in name, but backward compatible with C (ANSI, not K&R).
But then C-sharp really isn't C compatible but just uses a "C-like"
syntax, similair to the way Oberon uses a "Pascal like" syntax.
And Java has little to do with JavaScript.

The only reason I see to care about this is because it does cause
temporary confusion for people who are looking for a "Pascal
compiler" and stumble across "Component Pascal" not realizing that
it's not compatible with "real Pascal". But back to your original
example, Xerox can call name a copier anything they want. And?

Regards,

John M. Drake

Scott Moore

2004-02-27 00:13:48 UTC

Because there was some discussion on if posting of matters related
to "Component Pascal" should be posted to comp.lang.pascal.misc,
I, as the groups creator, held an informal poll as to if the original
post was consistent with this groups charter.

Of the replies I received, 4 were against, 0 were for. Ie., 4 people
believed that posting of "Component Pascal" language notices or
material of the kind contained in your post were against the
charter of this group, comp.lang.pascal.misc.

This is not a binding poll, and I notice it was very lightly
subscribed, ie., few regular posters appeared to take part in the
poll. In addition, some members of the group argued that your post
should be allowed, but for some reason declined to answer the poll.

We are not a moderated group, and this request is not binding.
However, I, as the groups creator, and the majority of parties
who cared to respond, ask that you not post material concerning
"Component Pascal" to comp.lang.pascal.misc again.

This is not meant to construe negative information of either
you or the product, simply that we feel it is off topic to post
such information here. There are better newsgroups for this
information.

Thank you.

Chris Burrows

2004-02-27 00:36:23 UTC

Post by Scott Moore
Of the replies I received, 4 were against, 0 were for. Ie., 4 people
believed that posting of "Component Pascal" language notices or
material of the kind contained in your post were against the
charter of this group, comp.lang.pascal.misc.

Please address your complaint to the original poster. I was merely
responding to a post of yours which appeared in the Oberon newsgroup.

Chris Burrows
CFB Software
http://www.cfbsoftware.com

Scott Moore

2004-02-27 02:35:05 UTC

Please address your complaint to the original poster. I was merely
responding to a post of yours which appeared in the Oberon newsgroup.
Chris Burrows
CFB Software
http://www.cfbsoftware.com

Your name did not appear anywhere in that message. Paranoia ?

Scott Moore

2004-02-21 08:57:06 UTC