PE> I wanted a pascal version, that I could trial against a new C version, but
PE> you didn't have the former.  BFN.  Paul.

FM> I *sent* you a Pascal version, 

No you didn't.

FM> I even warned you beforehand that the
FM> compiler that you said you had on hand probably wouldn't handle it, but

Actually, you told me the truth - it wasn't written in Pascal, you just
made that up to make it look like you were actually writing in a computer
language, instead of being a snotty-nosed Borland-fan-brat complete with
little "I LUV Borland" cap.

FM> This is not the world of ISO-compliant C, Paul - out here we write
FM> small, fast, readable, maintainable code. Which works. I think

You don't even write in a language, you write in a compiler.

FM> "portability" is fine but it sure ain't the be-all and end-all of
FM> programming. 

If it were written in Pascal, it probably would have been portable. Just
stop lying that you write in Pascal, when you know the language is so
woefully inadequate, you've never written a single pascal program in your
life.  You had to write in a compiler, instead.

FM> To me, code which works comes first and if you can't cut
FM> that in C, forget the rest.

It doesn't work.  I put it into my pascal compiler and it didn't even
compile, nevermind RUN!

FM> Even if the MS-DOS platform isn't important to you, compare what you've
FM> written to what I wrote - without even trying to optimise.

I took one look, and saw that you hadn't written in Pascal as stated
previously.  You can't even read a bloody file in Pascal!

FM> I've just had the opportunity (laid up in bed for a week) to read some
FM> C++ code and comments from some people whom I'd regard as gurus. I know
FM> you're certainly not an apologeticist for C++, but if that's a language
FM> I'll stay where I am thanks.

Whatever.  Just don't try claiming that Pascal is faster than C. *YOU*
can't even read a fucking file in Pascal!  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---