Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Pascal Book

Name: Anonymous 2008-07-12 13:02

What's a good pascal book that's relevant to the newest version? I'm trying to find books but I don't want to get one that's from 1980 by accident or something and find it doesn't help with my class at all.

Name: Anonymous 2008-07-12 13:06

If you're taking a Pascal class ask your teacher what a good book is.

Name: Anonymous 2008-07-12 13:07

I would, but class doesn't start until September. I thought I may as well get a head start so I'm not lost.

Name: Anonymous 2008-07-12 13:12

Software Tools in Pascal by Kernighan

Name: Anonymous 2008-07-12 13:17

>>4
Does it matter that it was published in 1981?

Name: Anonymous 2008-07-12 13:38

>>5
Not at all. What should matter is that it was written by Kernighan, who hates PASCAL. It's an interesting read.
Also, it's only 4 years older than SICP.

Name: Anonymous 2008-07-12 14:31

Dear newcomers to computer programming. You may have heard that computer technology advances faster than anything before it. This is true of hardware, but it is not true of software. Practically everything new in programming languages was first introduced in 1958 with McCarthy's original Lisp1 and Smalltalk in the 70s. Those `new' languages you've heard about in the last five years have been recycling these fresh 30-year old ideas like motherfuckers. Most of the actual interesting development on programming methodology in the last 20 years is crystallized on the Haskell programming language2. Just because those books are older than you doesn't mean that they aren't relevant.

__________________________________________
1Yes, it sucked, but it got the main idea right.
2I don't particularly like Haskell, but what I said happens to be the truth. Shut the fuck up.

Name: Anonymous 2008-07-12 14:34

>>7
So true. I think I've read that before, or at least something very similar to that.

Name: Anonymous 2008-07-12 14:37

>>7
Who said this?

Name: Anonymous 2008-07-12 14:39

>>8
I wrote that at 2008-07-12 14:31, so you probably didn't read it before that.

Name: Anonymous 2008-07-12 14:41

>>9
I did.

Name: Anonymous 2008-07-12 14:51

>>10
Still, I feel like I have. Somebody else must have written something very close to that, and I've read it.

Name: Anonymous 2008-07-12 14:54

>>12
What I wrote is true to the extent that I find it pretty surprising if someone hasn't written almost exactly the same thing.

Name: Anonymous 2008-07-12 14:57

>>13
I completely agree with you.

Name: 7,13 2008-07-12 15:01

>>14
Stop trying to same person me, fucktard.

Name: >>14 2008-07-12 15:06

>>15
That would be very hard, since I clearly am you.

Name: Anonymous 2008-07-12 15:14

>>16
Oh, you're that annoying kid who uses the word `clearly'. Grow up.

Name: Anonymous 2008-07-12 15:17

>>7,13-17
Oh, you're that annoying kid that keeps calling every one `annoying kid'. Grow up.

Name: Anonymous 2008-07-12 15:22

>>17,18
♫ Let's rise above ♫
♫ Getting dumber every day ♫

Name: Anonymous 2008-07-12 15:28

>>17-19
SPAWHBTC

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-17 17:33

Lain.

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-17 17:33

Lain.

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-17 17:34

Lain.

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-17 17:34

Lain.

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-17 17:35

Lain.

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-17 17:35

Lain.

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-17 17:36

Lain.

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-17 17:37

Lain.

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-17 17:37

Lain.

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-17 17:38

Lain.

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-17 17:38

Lain.

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-17 17:39

Lain.

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-17 17:40

Lain.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List