=> Quoting Henrik Wahlberg (2:238/64.15) to John Howard on 30 Dec 94 <=

 > My Pascal vendor has been Borland for several years now.  But Borland
 > is not interested in developing Pascal for OS/2.  Even if they became
 > interested, chances are the Pascal dialect would be non-standard.  This is
 > the primary reason I am searching for an "Extended Pascal"
compiler for
 > OS/2 that utilizes the System Object Model (SOM) to implement its Objects.

 HW> To the best of my knowledge objects have newer been part of standard
 HW> pascal?  I find that Borland has done a good job of keeping pascal
 HW> modern, which inherently is non standard, so please do'nt bash them of
 HW> that. But I agree, they nead notes, that we want OS/2 pascal, and we
 HW> want it soon.

Hello Henrik,

The most recent standard Pascal (1991) is known as Extended Pascal.  It is
like a combination of Modula-2 and Borland Pascal.  It is upwardly compatible
with source code in "classic" Pascal circa 1982.

Borland Pascal added fine extensions to "classic" Pascal but it
is still not
compatible with the old standard.  Dialects with extensions are not backward
compatible with "classic" Pascal or even Extended Pascal, but
that is not the
problem.  The problem is writing source code today which is guaranteed to be
portable in the future.  Either the operating system or the computer language
must provide the portability.  Making the computer language responsible for
portability is a sure thing but betting on writing for only one final
operating system is unwise.

There are Extended Pascal compilers which have added extensions in support of
Objects.  Prospero Software Ltd. supplies them for DOS, Windows, and 32-bit
OS/2.  But such extensions will inherently be non-portable.  Better to
utilize the operating system's mechanism for handling Objects.  That way the
Objects can be shared by other programs within the OS.  Further, the same
Objects are accessible to developers using other computer languages.

OS/2 has the System Object Model (SOM) to do this.  MS Windows 3.x lacks an
Object Model.  The Windows '95 OS will have Common Object Model (COM) but it
is proprietary and not as powerful as SOM.  SOM is an open standard from IBM.
For comparisons, connect with http://www.ibm.com/ on the world-wide web.
OS/2 V3 Warp users can use the IBM Internet Connection software to do this.

OS/2 Version 3 is truly an Object-Oriented operating system.  Many PC
programmers and users are not familiar yet with the capabilities or benefits
of SOM.  SOM was introduced in OS/2 version 2.1 and has a well planned upward
migration path from IBM.  SOM has all the capability of Borland Pascal
Objects and offers more.

Consequently I require an OS/2 compiler, Extended Pascal (ISO/IEC 10206) for
portability of source code, and syntax extensions to hook into SOM.  Ideally
the syntax should be compatible with Borland Pascal 7.0 Objects due to
wide-spread knowledge and possibility for source code re-use.  SOM can handle
PUBLIC/PRIVATE declarations, VIRTUAL methods, INHERITED objects, and STATIC/
DYNAMIC binding.  Only Prospero is a possibility so I sent for more info.

It is in our own best interest to establish Extended Pascal as the market
standard.  Otherwise, Pascal development will further fragment and weaken as
a whole.  If Computer Science college graduates can't find work using Pascal
they will join the C hordes and Pascal will eventually die commercially.  I
don't know if they still do this, but when I was in college about six years
ago, "classic" Pascal was taught and used during the Freshmen and Sophmore
years because of its similarity to pseudo-code and its strong type checking.
Then upperclassmen progressed to Modula type languages.  It would be a shame
to lose that potential base of support for Pascal.

BP 7.0 was released fully a year after the Extended Pascal specification was
finalized.  Clearly, Borland is happy with keeping us locked into their own
dialects and toolsets.  Moreover, we have not heard a word from Borland
concerning Extended Pascal.  Borland is moving toward a Visual Pascal for
Windows implementation called Delphi.  The fact that Delphi is a visual
development environment should be what distinguishes the product from
Borland's competitors.  Prospero's Extended Pascal for OS/2 has the exception
handling capability which Delphi purportedly puts to good use.  Why didn't
Borland adopt Extended Pascal and add their own extensions for Objects?  It
must be Delphi remains Windows95 only.  So don't expect Borland to support
OS/2 with a Pascal compiler unless Delphi fails.  The ironic thing is that
had Borland utilized Extended Pascal they'd have the option to more readily
port a Visual Pascal to OS/2.  The lack of portability hurts every Pascal
developer and tool supplier.  There will be a Visual Pascal for OS/2 someday
which is Extended Pascal but it will likely come from a company like Prospero
or a third-party supporter of Extended Pascal.  How soon it is available will
depend upon the marketplace.  I am not unjustifiably dumping on Borland; they
just happen to be in the way of the kind of progress that every Pascal
developer needs to be able to successfully compete with C developers.  In the
big picture, Pascal is losing ground precisely because the market leader is
not providing a portable Extended Pascal.  Since operating systems will
manage Objects themselves there is no reason for sacrificing basic
portability within and across operating systems.

Borland has been adding compiler switches that deal with language preferences
which are provided in Extended Pascal.  Such as: full boolean evaluation,
extended syntax, open-string parameters, and strict-VAR strings.  Extended
Pascal allows portable CONSTant parameters, open arrays, parameter passing of
structured data types, initialized data, initialization/finalization sections
and many other features.  OS/2 provides a 32-bit flat memory model, so we can
say goodbye to restrictive 64k data structures.  I have a 49k text file which
overviews Extended Pascal and provides a few programming examples using
Prospero compilers for DOS, Windows, and OS/2.  Anyone can send me their
Internet address and I'll email them the file.

... Documentation - The worst part of programming.