From: Eivind Eklund <eeklund@...>
Date: 2007-11-29T04:22:44+09:00
Subject: Re: Most elegant way to do this?

On Nov 28, 2007 4:25 PM, William James <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 7:10 am, Lloyd Linklater <ll...@2live4.com> wrote:
>
> > William James wrote:
> > > That C-code is hideous.  Let's compare it to something
> > > that isn't insanely low-level.
> >
> > OOOOO!  I know this one!
> >
> > If you meant this as pascal, this is the code:
> >
> > function roll( n: integer ): integer;
> > var i: integer;
> > begin
> >   for i := 1 to n do result := inc(result, random(6) + 1);
> > end;
> >
> > There is no += in pascal.  If only...  :)  Your version where you init
> > the result so you do not have to add may run faster but I golfed it a
> > bit.  Still, it is far better than the C version.  I liked seeing it
> > here too.  :)
>
> Glad you liked it.  It strikes me as bizarre that so many Ruby
> users who want more speed descend from the dizzying heights of
> Ruby to the chthonic depths of ultra primitive C.  Why not use
> Pascal?

I would guess because more people know C than Pascal, and it is easier
to link Ruby to C than to Pascal?

Apart from that, having programmed both C and Pascal, I only see small
differences in level.  Object Pascal aside, as far as I can remember
from my Pascal programming days (15 years since I wrote my last line
of Pascal - how time flies...), there's little abstraction available
in Pascal that's not there in C - the most I can think of would be
"with" and a nicer integration of the export/import module system.

Care to enlighten me as to how you see these as being at very different levels?

Eivind.