[–]▶ No.817252>>817305 >>826590 [Watch Thread][Show All Posts]
Is object pascal a dead language?
▶ No.817279>>817297
Is it still being developed?
▶ No.817280>>817305 >>817309 >>817391
Since OP is lazy person, I spent 5 seconds googling. Object pascal is a family of languages, and there is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygene_(programming_language)
which is still being developed. It is perhaps uncommon, but not dead.
▶ No.817297>>817336
>>817279
Not really. No development in the language itself doesn't imply the language is dead. Sometimes, software can reach the level of maturity that is pretty much perfect for its situation.
▶ No.817305
>>817252 (OP)
>>817280
theres also Free Pascal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Pascal
i've played some roguelikes written in it
▶ No.817309
>>817280
Hmm. The language is interesting, but .NET ruins it.
▶ No.817336
>>817297
Language implementations do need to be updated for newer operating systems, and as new features are added to processors, compilers will need to produce or insert hints for those newer instructions. The language standard can be old, but if the actual implementations hasn't been touched for several years, it doesn't look too good.
▶ No.817366>>819812
Delphi used to be massively popular back when VB was also big. Given how much was written I'm sure there are still maintenance jobs for all that '90s code, but it's completely dead for new code. I'd not thought about it for a long time, I thought we'd be cursed with those two forever and yet here we are. For some blostposting, I did some minor stuff with it but mostly used Turbo Pascal back then. You might be surprised to learn that a lot of demoscene stuff back then was a mix of Turbo Pascal and assembly.
▶ No.817383>>817453 >>825360
▶ No.817391
>>817280
what's the point in .NET version?
everything Pascal was about is that it compiled to native code while having less UB shit than in C and C++.
oxygene is pointless, why not just write in C# then.
▶ No.817453>>825492
>>817383
Yes, very much so. In the 80's and early 90's it was very popular and a lot of DOS BBS stuff was written in Turbo Pascal. Also some games and demoscene stuff, although those tended to use lots of inline asm as well, except maybe for stuff that didn't need max optimization, like design tools for example.
▶ No.817483>>819792 >>819812
Free Pascal is still one of the easiest low-level languages. I've never met anyone who tried it and went back to C++.
Just look at the download numbers of Lazarus IDE, and compare it to other top projects distributed on sourceforge:
7zip 34,966 Downloads (This Week) https://sourceforge.net/projects/sevenzip
MPC-HC 15,357 Downloads (This Week) https://sourceforge.net/projects/mpc-hc/
Lazarus 12,145 Downloads (This Week) https://sourceforge.net/projects/lazarus/
Clonezilla 11,059 Downloads (This Week) https://sourceforge.net/projects/clonezilla/
I don't think it is dead.
▶ No.818025
One word:
FASHION.
It's not hip. If it's not hip, there isn't enough people (and software companies, which is more important) to support it. Without support, its rich and streamlined Visual Component Library (which is a parallel hierarchy of objects reflecting the native one) becomes outdated.
▶ No.819494
It's a good language and Lazarus is a good IDE but they don't advertise that much. I think more people would use it if they tried it. A lot of languages have the same problem.
▶ No.819792
>>817483
>Free Pascal is still one of the easiest low-level languages. I've never met anyone who tried it and went back to C++.
I used both Pascal and C++. Yet I am doing things in C++, not pascal. C++ has more libraries and bindings to do many things. Also I do not like "begin" and "end" instead of { }
▶ No.819812
>>817483
>I've never met anyone who tried it and went back to C++.
How about me? I'm >>817366 and last used Pascal in the '90s.
▶ No.820177>>820193 >>820230
is pascal a meme?
why did it lose with c and c++?
▶ No.820193>>820311
>>820177
>is pascal a meme?
No.
>why did it lose with c and c++?
UNIX and Windows chose C and C++ respectively.
▶ No.820221>>820232
Freepascal is still plenty good enough to make games though. If someone doesn't want to jump into the undefined bahavior mess of C, they still have other options besides just scripting languages.
> inb4 Rust helped you double benis size
▶ No.820230
>>820177
Mainly because the rest of the world had gone with C. But that wasn't just fashion as it was difficult to write low-level software (normal software at the time) in Pascal without mixing in assembly to get around the type system. When mixing in assembly stopped being acceptible (this used to be quite normal on PCs) so did Pascal.
Academia was very angry about this (UCLA in the early '90s only taught Pascal) but academia has a hard time dealing with the fact that people want to actually MAKE things, not wank about type systems.
▶ No.820232>>820243 >>825094
>>820221
Who put it in your heads that undefined behavior is bad? I swear this shit only showed up in the last 2-3 years. It's a feature not a bug, and it's why C is so fast while still being portable. It's what allowed us to replace almost all assembly in an OS.
▶ No.820243>>820308 >>825094
>>820232
> Who put it in your heads that undefined behavior is bad?
Fixing old crusty code that stopped working (sometimes in spectacular ways) when they upgraded or changed hardware, OS, or compiler. Not my code, just stuff I ended up maintaining.
Also reading Usenet posts long ago where "expert C" dudes got Real Tough and lashed out at n00bs who hadn't yet memorized the ISO standard.
Also countless CVEs related to undefined behavior.
▶ No.820308>>820348
>>820243
Bad code is bad code no matter the language. PHP has none of the undefined behavior you're terrified of yet it's the king of CVE for all time.
▶ No.820311>>820348 >>825285
>>820193
Did anyone other than Apple really go with Pascal? It's a shame they dumped it partway through creating Object Pascal, when they were transitioning to PPC.
▶ No.820348
>>820308
Probably PHP has lots of CVEs because it's where the people with zero programming experience start with (right after they learn HTML and think they're programmers). So they're going to make lots of mistakes. But they would have an even harder time and make even more mistakes with C.
>>820311
Yeah, Borland's Delphi was very popular on Windows for a long time. I guess it's still used in some places, and you can still buy it apparently. Maybe it lost some market due to C#, but before that it was a good alternative for people who didn't want the extra complication of C or C++.
▶ No.825094>>825291
>>820232
>>820243
1. Compilers are interpreting it in stupid ways.
2. It's possible to do the same things without it (see Ada).
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20140627-00/?p=633
▶ No.825285
>>820311
Delphi was the hot thing in 199something. The good thing was that they sent the code of all their components with the IDE. I learned a lot about windows api and how to make visual components looking their code.
▶ No.825291>>825337
>>825094
Why don't the people who worry about UB compile with optimization disabled?
▶ No.825337>>825339
>>825291
Compilers can still break things anyway and most optimizations are still useful since they have nothing to do with UB.
▶ No.825339
>>825337
Broken code was broken before the compiler touched it. I don't understand the obsession with this. Bad logic is going to fuck up no matter how it's compiled or what language is used. Automated testing is the correct solution.
▶ No.825360>>825374
>>817383
It was technically sound but the greedy fucks at Borland mismanaged it into the ground. It's one of the great failure stories of the 90s computer industry, up there with Commodore
▶ No.825374
>>825360
Corel was another impressive fuckup.
▶ No.825492>>825544
>>817453
tell me you still have the original IDE and compiler
I've had no luck reversing 16 bit code abandon ware from the era
▶ No.825544>>825763
>>825492
Not that anon, but I used to crack stuff in the 16 bit DOS days. It should be very easy with modern tools. The hardest thing back then was writing TSRs that had to patch several overlay loads with anti-TSR code to get to the right code (many programs loaded one 64KiB page at a time almost like a multi-stage bootloader today).
▶ No.825763>>826162 >>826169
>>825544
>Modern tools that can handle what seems to be a custom compiler for an unrecognized CPU assembly architecture
Enlighten me?
▶ No.826162
>>825763
I'm confused as to what you're looking for. Where did custom compilers and unrecognized CPU architectures come from? Turbo Pascal on DOS was about as basic as it gets without literally being basic.
▶ No.826169
>>825763
Maybe this helps you understand,
$ echo -en "\xcd\x21" > foo.com && objdump -D -b binary -m i8086 foo.com
foo.com: file format binary
Disassembly of section .data:
00000000 <.data>:
0: cd 21 int $0x21
▶ No.826590>>826596
>>817252 (OP)
Is pascal still a horrible language? Way back in the 90s I learned how to program on Macs. Half of their APIs used pascal strings and the other half used C strings, and you constantly had to convert them back and forth. Also callbacks in the Carbon API, callbacks everywhere. I'm pretty sure most of the APIs werent even asynchronous, they just wanted to you to use callbacks because fuck you.
If you dont know what a pascal string is/was, the first byte would be the length of the string followed by the data.
▶ No.826596>>826654 >>826695 >>826701
>>826590
What'd they do if the string was longer than 255 bytes?
▶ No.826654
>>826596
Use more strings.
▶ No.826695>>826696
>>826596
I dont recall, this was 20 years ago. For a lot of APIs I think you were fucked and had to write your own code if you really needed to do this. This was also a time before free IDEs on the mac (as far as I knew), and piracy was difficult. I had to buy a book to get a shitty edition of Metrowerks's IDE
▶ No.826696
>>826695
>20 years ago
fuck me, it was even longer than that now that I think about it, this was the 68k days.
▶ No.826701
>>826596
And if you want to see some of the bullshit you had to deal with
https://mikeash.com/pyblog/the-mac-toolbox-followup.html