Talk:Object Pascal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please see[edit]

- Please see the apple specific compilers (e.g. from http://pascal-central.com/ppl/chapter5.html#Compilers)

(this because the original object pascal (the standards draft, from which Apple's dialect is derived, and even Delphi was inspired by) is nearly absent from this article. FPC has some modifiers that make it more Apple like in $mode macpascal btw). The pascal article iirc has more data. A clear reference to pre Delphi origines should be made for histories sake in the basic summary of the first paragraph. 88.159.72.36 10:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Can TP be seen as object pascal? I mean, while it is Pascal-with-objects, it has a static object model.

- In Borland Object Pascal, the keyword 'object' is supported for compatibility with the object model of Turbo Pascal. (can auto alloc and use new and dispose). I think it should be referenced somewhere in the article.

Diego --15.227.137.70 15:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afaik Chrome is more an Oberon than an Object Pascal? 88.159.73.216 14:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not so. Chrome is definitely not derived from Oberon. It is an extended subset of Borland's Object Pascal dialect. Chris Burrows 01:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dangling "others"[edit]

"The open source Free Pascal project allows the language to be compiled for Linux, Mac OS X, Win64, Windows CE, and others." These are operating systems, aren't they? If I'm right, perhaps "others" should be changed to "other operating systems." D021317c 00:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is win64 a target (arch-OS combination) or an OS ? Since win64 also comes in multiple flavours (AMD64, IA64, Alpha). Same with WinCE (afaik there are MIPS CE's, though the majority is ARM). So in short, the precise explanation is a matrix of OS (windows, linux), OS subtype (win64,win32,wince), architecture (ARM, x86) and architecture subtypes (LE vs BE memory system, instruction set etc).

I suggest to leave it as it is, but more clearly hint on multi architecture support. Then it is clear enough for a short hint. 88.159.72.36 10:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Description of GNU compiler[edit]

"It is the most prolific compiler in terms of operating systems and processors though, and therefore deserves mentioning as a last resort." What does "prolific" mean in this context? That its output is very bulky, or that it has resulted in the greatest number of useful programs? "As a last resort" seems to refer to the decision to mention it, though I suspect the intention was to say that one should only use it as a last resort. D021317c 01:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a last resort if your platform isn't supported indeed. Another remotely imaginable reason is if your workload is mostly numerical in nature and you need the best optimizer, and possible OpenMP and Fortran access, and are willing to put up with grave limitations and a less friendly environment in exchange (which is an understatement, even compared with FPC. Getting GPC to run is already nontrivial) 88.159.72.36 08:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Object Pascal in the Software Market" Section[edit]

This was added by an anonymous, and doesn't cite references. Is it even accurate?

Afaik yes. At least in the paid for development tools, VB (and now VS) dominate, and Delphi is second. Problem is that a lot of tools, specially scripting languages are hard to compare to e.g. sold development tools. E.g. is sb deploying phpbb or some PHP CMS a PHP programmer?

-- If its hard to compare, then we shouldn't be making broad statements about how great its market share is. Also, the current note has a citation to a completely irrelevant article that has nothing to do with market share -> Fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.130.32 (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will the real Object Pascal please stand up?[edit]

After reading this article, I am still confused about which "Object Pascal" is which. It sounds like there have been multiple conflicting standards for Object Pascal over the years (Apple, Turbo Pascal, Delphi at least), and various implementations which provide support for the different object models. The code snippets are a good start, but it might be clearer to have a table comparing the various dialects to each other, and specifying which implementations support which dialects (and how they support them). If the differences are large enough, maybe even split them into different articles. --IanOsgood 19:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever edited this is an <censored>. The article of the Delphi programming language links here, to an article that claims in its lede, prominently, that this is about some Apple language ("The language was originally developed by Apple Computer"… is CLEARLY wrong). Only in the fifth paragraph is Delphi/Object Pascal mentioned. TurboPascal's OOP extensions have nothing to do with anything Apple did. Bad WP editor! --jae (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Borland Delphi 3.jpg[edit]

Image:Borland Delphi 3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Words[edit]

I’m noticing some weasel words (and phrases, I guess) throughout the article such as “many people”. I rephrased some of them but was afraid I might alter the meaning for others; I know little about Object Pascal. I just wanted to bring attention to this issue. Dmyersturnbull (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delphi Vs. Object Pascal[edit]

I'm guessing Object Pascal was first of the two articles to be created, but why title it Object Pascal if (even according to the top of the article itself) everyone tends toward the Delphi side of the coin? I'm not familiar with Wikipedia rules regarding such things.

"Borland used the name "Object Pascal" for the programming language in the first versions of Delphi, but later renamed it to the "Delphi programming language". However, compilers that claim to be Object Pascal compatible are often trying to be compatible with Delphi source code."

INULL (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.. And the compatibles call their dialect still "Object Pascal", not anything with Delphi in it. They use the term Delphi exclusively to refer to the Delphi product.

To my best knowledge the term "Delphi" is trademarked, which is probably the reason behind all this, together with the fact that old Delphi users kept calling the language "Object Pascal". 88.159.74.100 (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

delphi users calls language Opject Pascal because it is OBJECT PASCAL ! Delphi language do not exist, only Delphi tool and Delphi dialect of Object Pascal !!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.228.217 (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Embarcadero's Delphi compiler, dcc, compiles a language it calls Delphi, not Object Pascal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.41.252 (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link Farm[edit]

Moving some of the excessive external links from the article.

Embarcadero

RemObjects Software

Delphi communities

Tools For Object Pascal

GNU Pascal

paxCompiler

WDSybil

-- GateKeeper (talk) @ 21:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello world[edit]

It strikes me that the code used for hello world is a bit long compared to what I found elsewhere: 

 {$APPTYPE CONSOLE} 
 begin
   WriteLn ('Hello, World!');
 end.

I am sure there is a problem with this but can someone please explain? Testrider (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is BASICA -- uh, sorry, basically -- that your code is Pascal, not Object Pascal. Sure, it is actually valid OP code, since Object Pascal is a superset of Standard Pascal... But an example that uses only the Standard Pascal subset is rather meaningless as an illustration of the Object Pascal superset. It's like illustrating C++ with C code: Like C, Standard Pascal has its own page with its own example code. When you read the page on C++ or on Object Pascal, what you want to see is what separates the object-oriented language from its procedural forebear, not exactly the same thing again. HTH!--CRConrad (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello world examples[edit]

This is not the easiest way. (Maybe that section was written by a C++ programmer to promote C++)

Hello world examples should be simplest possible.

I have written several complete programs (sold too) in Delphi and the language is both simple and powerful. Hello world examples should show its simplicity, not a specific advanced feature.

This is possible in Delphi: 

Program test;
begin
  WriteLn ('Hello, World!');
end.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:E6E3:0:EC4B:3B1A:55A4:C5EF (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Hi! I am afraid your example does not demonstrate object-oriented programming. For the "Hello, World!" program article, it is fine. But not for this article. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Importance[edit]

I disagree with Object Pascal being of low importance. It is more important than Delphi (software), which is itself mid importance. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with you. Not understanding how it's rated as low (particularly from a historical perspective) or that a re-evaluation hasn't been done. Comparatively and overall, Object Pascal (which includes Delphi) is among the most prolific and successful languages of all time. Not saying it's presently the most successful or is at the top, but referring to a wider view, and its usage is still clearly significant.Wukuendo (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Object_Pascal&oldid=1216842625"