[fpc-pascal] Question about interfaces

[Michael Van Canneyt]

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, ml wrote:

> On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 02:55 +0200, Nikolay Nikolov wrote:
> > ml wrote:
> > 
> > >Other possibilities like ['?','%','$','|','&','::','^'] were only named
> > >under btw. (and how can btw. under question 2 become the main flaming
> > >topic is out of my reason, maybe its time to my annual lobotomy)
> > >  
> > >
> > Well, mentioning C-isms in a pascal forum may sometimes lead to flames 
> > :) (Yes, it was a c-ism, for example operator '::' exists only in C++.) 
> > And btw some of these characters are already used in fpc. '$' is for hex 
> > values ($deadbeef), '%' - for binary (%101010) and '&' - for octal 
> > (&666). '^' is used for dereferencing pointers (p^.something := 5).
> > 
> 
> :) %$& you're right. 
> 
> But you're wrong for '::' '::' exists in perl too. Other C operator is
> '|' (again this one exists in perl) which is or in C. But then again
> someone could say that both are a nice way to express delimiters. 
> 
> I'm not really much of pascal lover, I'm just practical. I just use
> something when it is clean, logical and usable for the purpose. So if
> that's the case as you described it (about c flames), then either pascal
> has no future, or it is very very dark. Because not even one tool is not
> usable for all purposes.

This is correct. 
In true Unix philosphy, I also use the tool I think fits the job best.
This may or may not be Pascal.

But look at it like this: 
Chess has a set of limited and strict rules which are not subject 
to change. Grand masters think of incredibly complicated and 
sometimes beautiful strategies, but they stay within these limited rules. 

A grand programmer uses the tools he has to make great software. 
As a grand master in chess does not need to change the rules, the 
grand programmer doesn't need to change his tools to make great 
software. 

Which doesn't mean he could try, of course...

Michael.