Talk:Comparison of Pascal and Borland Delphi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, I started this page. It contains just the basic facts about what the differences are between Borland Delphi and the original language as proposed by Niklaus Wirth.

--Pascalman 20:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

The article needs work. The main thing is that sections shouldn't be a "question and answer". Bubba73 (talk), 22:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Spelling error 'Comparision' in the article title - I would have changed it if I knew how to. Chris Burrows (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it by moving the article. Bubba73 (talk), 02:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of the second person use. Bubba73 (talk), 02:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be less instructional, particularly the sections about making a program compatible with different dialects. I.e, Don't say " you should do ...", but tell what should be done or has to be done. (Third person passive voice). Bubba73 (talk), 04:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

How similar are ISO 7185 and Niklaus Wirth's original specification? Are they essentially the same? Bubba73 (talk), 02:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

See John Reagan's FAQ: http://www.pascal-central.com/extpascal.html Chris Burrows (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a more complete comparison here: http://www.standardpascal.com/pascalfaq.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.198.58 (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Eliminate first person too : "I have seen...". Bubba73 (talk), 21:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In some cases the article needs to say which is which. i.e., "The functions "pack" and "unpack" are not implemented." - they are not implemented in Delphi. Similarly, Goto can not reference outside its proc in Delphi. Bubba73 (talk), 02:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is it possible sections

First, I do not like the style of the three "is it bossible" sections - they shouldn't be question and answer. Secondly, I have concerns as to whether or not they belong in an article comparing the two versions of Pascal. Bubba73 (talk), 01:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

we'll look forward to your rewrite. What specifically is not relevant to the subject at hand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.198.58 (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to rewrite them. If you want me to edit them then I will delete them as being non-encyclopedic in tone. Bubba73 (talk), 00:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In particular, see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Bubba73 (talk), 00:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to rewrite them either. What you appear to be interested in is complaining that others should be doing work. If you don't like it, but aren't willing to do anything about it, that does not equal it needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.253.185 (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article shou;d adhere to the policies of Wikipedia, which those sections don't. I'm giving someone a chance to fix them, or they will probably get deleted. I've made 15,000 edits to Wikipedia. I'm not going to fix someone else's errors on this. I'll delete them if need be. And if those are gone, then I'd say that section 2 should be merged into Borland Pascal and the article deleted. Bubba73 (talk), 00:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)