Talk:Pascal (programming language)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

COBOL as an influence?

Looks like this was added back in 2007 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pascal_(programming_language)&diff=prev&oldid=167771005) and gone unquestioned since, but it seems to me very unlikely to be the case. Snori (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

From my memory, COBOL was only an influence in the sense of "make sure it is nothing like COBOL". Yes, my memory isn't a source, but the influence has no source. I removed it. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section

This is way too long, with recent attempts to 'correct' it making things even worse. Is it even necessary? All programming languages have their fans and those that dislike them, their good and bad features, but they don’t have anything like this amount of criticism that I’ve seen. It should either be pared down dramatically or removed altogether.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

There was an entire page for C, but it was AfD'd into a merge, and all content lost. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC).

Extended Pascal

I noticed that the Extended Pascal section is just a reference to the equivalent ANSI standard with no discussion on its features, etc.

I'd like to come back on a rainy Saturday and greatly expand the section. Any objections?

I was the X3J9 secretary during Extended Pascal development and I've been a Pascal compiler developer since 1983.

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnreagan (talk • contribs) 12:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No objections! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC).

Notability of implementations

The Compilers and interpreters section contains a long list of implementations, mostly not covered in Wikipedia, and mostly with no indication of notability. Google Search finds fewer than 200 mentions of several of them (page through the results to get to the end). Wikipedia is not a directory of software (or anything else). Wikipedia doesn't publish lists. For most of these, there is no third-party source showing that they are notable, but only a link to the software's home page. Under WP policy, all these listings should be removed. --Macrakis (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Not so. While we generally only have articles about things that meet WP:GNG, we certainly mention lots of things that don't. They need to be significant to the article, which is a much lower bar. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC).