Hi,

What is the programming language used in and with the Free Pascal Compiler?

* Object Pascal
* Delphi
* Free Pascal
* Pascal

I would have thought the first option [Object Pascal], but I have read many articles/blogs on the internet which seem to refer to the Free Pascal Compiler project's language as Free Pascal.

So what is the official word/answer on this?

If the Free Pascal Compiler project indeed does consider it having its own Pascal dialect, named Free Pascal, then is there a list of what syntax it has that is different to Borland's "Object Pascal", or Embarcadero's "Delphi" language?

In our previous episode, Ben said:

Pretty much all apply. Free Pascal has a mode concept with 5/6 modes.

The first is a Turbo Pascal compatible mode, but the object extensions of Turbo Pascal were also called "object pascal" in the day.

The second is a fpc (Free Pascal mode), which is a Turbo Pascal like mode with some extensions and some limiting backwards compatibility features of Turbo mode removed.

The third is a Delphi compatible mode, which, by Borland itself, was called "Object Pascal" too.

The fourth is the "Object Free Pascal" mode, which is more like a "strict" Delphi mode.

The fifth is a Mac Pascal mode whose Pascal was also called "Object Pascal" in the day. This mode also has a submode called "objectIVE Pascal".

The sixth is an ISO Pascal mode, and together with Mac Pascal mode it comes closest to the original Pascal (the Borland dialects, Turbo and Delphi are based on a subset of the original Pascal). This mode is only available in development versions.

The reason for so many "Object Pascal" names is that there were many attempts to add Objects to Pascal, but they all take the name of an early proposal to do so.

The "Objective" mode is not related to that, but to Objective C, the language where parts of the OS X system interfaces are specified in.

If the Free Pascal Compiler project indeed does consider it having its own Pascal dialect, named Free Pascal, then is there a list of what syntax it has that is different to Borland's "Object Pascal", or Embarcadero's "Delphi" language?

The FPC modes are mostly variants of the Borland modes. Delphi is a bit of a problematic term because there is no formal standard, and the various Delphi versions don't always agree on things.

In general, the compatibility with older versions (up to D7) is very high, only some more exotic things are not implemented. Libraries will probably pose a bigger problem than language.

Marco van de Voort wrote

The fifth is a Mac Pascal mode whose Pascal was also called "Object Pascal" in the day. This mode also has a submode called "objectIVE Pascal".

Objective-Pascal is unrelated to the Mac Pascal mode: a) syntactically they are not related
b) Objective-Pascal is a modeswitch (rather than a syntax mode) and can be used in combination with every syntax mode (from TP to to ObjFPC to ISO)

Jonas

Ben wrote

If the Free Pascal Compiler project indeed does consider it having its own Pascal dialect, named Free Pascal, then is there a list of what syntax it has that is different to Borland's "Object Pascal", or Embarcadero's "Delphi" language?

I don't think there's an exhaustive list, but the main differences are mentioned at http://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/prog/progse75.html and http://www.freepascal.org/port.var

Jonas

It is even mentioned here (together with 43,5 other Pascal dialects :)

http://99-bottles-of-beer.net/

I think that we need to distinguish between the name of the language (either Pascal or Object Pascal) and the implementation (Free Pascal). It's entirely reasonable that there be variations in the underlying language depending on implementation.

I'd suggest that an issue to be considered is what facilities are available in the language by default, i.e. with no command line options, embedded directives or "uses" statements.

Moreover, we need to distinguish between the base (i.e. standard) language and the implemented language (and its extensions). Almost all programming languages with more than one implementations do. For instance, standard C cannot have nested functions, but C implemented by GCC can. Standard C cannot have ... to mark range in case part of a switch statement, but C implemented by GCC can.

It is all of them.

Object Pascal is a superset of Pascal. Delphi is a variant of Object Pascal (an implementation of
OP plus a RAD). Free Pascal is an implementation and extension of all the others.

I consider myself an FPC programmer rather than a Pascal programmer simply because it is important
to stress that I am not clinging to the 70's original Pascal but a modern language. Strangely enough,
you have to make that clear, while few C programmers are expected to use the K&R C of the same time
even though they don't present themselves as "C99 programmers" or "ANSI C programmers".

/Ingemar

How about Apollo?

Op 2011-02-16 11:48, Frank Church het geskryf:

How about Apollo?

Some might suggest "Titanic" too. :-)

With my original post I wasn't actually asking for new suggestions, but simply if FPC considers the language it uses as a "new" language named for example "Free Pascal", or does it still consider it as standard "Object Pascal".

But with everybody's replies, I guess it is a difficult question to answer, because FPC has many hats (various compiler modes), which affects the language syntax. Even so, I would like to think compiler mode ObjFPC is FPC's native/default language - the others are just nice gestures for compatibility sake.

Frank Church wrote

How about Apollo?

This was the code name for Adobe Air - I expect it would be hard to get traction if Adobe still hold some kind of rights over it.

I suggest to ask first

Professor Niklaus Wirth

Regards

Markus Greim

greim wrote

I suggest to ask first Professor Niklaus Wirth

I think he has moved on long ago.

Rich Saunders wrote

On 2/16/11 5:40 AM, greim wrote: > I suggest to ask first Professor Niklaus Wirth I think he has moved on long ago.

Don't let him know that, as he's still happily alive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklaus_Wirth

Regards,
Sven

Sven Barth wrote

...he's still happily alive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklaus_Wirth

Of course he is. I only meant he has not paid much attention to the Pascal language for decades. ;)

Rich Saunders wrote

On 2/16/11 11:27 AM, Sven Barth wrote: > ...he's still happily alive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklaus_Wirth Of course he is. I only meant he has not paid much attention to the Pascal language for decades. ;)

In that case I've misunderstood you ^^

Regards,
Sven

Yeah, he let Pascal in the last state he worked on. But don't you know he's also an actor behind (Apple's) Object Pascal?

How about Dijkstra?

This will focus minds our wonderfully and will lead us to ensure that our programs are derived correctly from precise unambiguous semantically sound specifications.
.
I mean, we can't call our language Dijkstra and write buggy programs, can we?

We should consider it a challenge.

Let the voting begin!!

Frank Church wrote

How about Dijkstra?

Where can I send a letter to the editor saying "Naming the language Dijkstra is considered harmful." ;)

Philippe Kahn did more for Pascal then Dijkstra.

He expanded it and made it soo cheaply available that it was an instant winner.

Regards / Cees

...and Borland/Inprise squandered the lead.

g.

That was the time the professional managers took over. Fuller was his name if my memory is correct.

They allowed Anders Hejlsberg to be bought by MS (signing bonus), while 'the managers' took hefty bonuses and shares (which Anders did not get, while he was the brains, and they only the suites).

Regards / Cees

Yep. Any time you've got accountants running a technology company, you've got a failed company that doesn't know it yet.

g.

Gene Buckle wrote

Yep. Any time you've got accountants running a technology company, you've got a failed company that doesn't know it yet.

I believe this discussion has ended up well into the territory of the fpc-other list now... :)

Thanks,

Jonas
FPC mailing lists admin

How about calling it "Pascal", implicitly stating that Pascal nowadays is OO anyways, a fact that does not need to be mentioned separately, and also implicitly declaring the implementation of Free Pascal with all its features as the legitimate heir of any older Pascal and today's de-facto standard?

Bernd