Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:57:06 -0500
> Having been in the thick of this I would like to make a minor
> correction. The US was against level 1 because it was an extension of
> the original language specification in the Pascal Users Manual. The
> original scope was to be ONLY the language defined there. I voted
> against the proposal for that reason. At the time I was representing
> the duPont company and not a coimpiler company. The major argument I
> had against the idea was that you could not use the feature without
> doing something outside the language or just coping the code into your
> program. There was not library facility, preprocessor or separate
> compilation facility. A more complete solution needed to be done.
> This is just my opinion.
> Steve Schwarm
Wow, thanks for the clarification! I never heard that one before.
As Steve implies, neither Level 1 nor Level 0
described a language that was useful for more than small programs.
Pascal was designed for teaching purposes, not to be industrially
useful, and the ISO standard was, in that sense, a joke because
any Pascal usefulness came from proprietary extensions anyway.
There was some discussion of an extended Pascal standard, but I
don't think this ever came to fruition. That being the case,
the best approximation we've seen to a really grown-up Pascal
standard is Ada. If memory serves, Red, Blue, and Yellow were genuine
extended Pascals. Green was not, but OTOH it's a pretty close