REPLY: 25.fido-pascal@1:3634/12 231a7622   
   MSGID: 2:423/39 5eb64478   
   CHRS: CP895 2   
   TZUTC: 0200   
   TID: CrashMail II/Linux 0.62   
   Hello mark!   
      
   08 May 20 07:18, you wrote to me:   
      
    ml> i remember moving from (line number oriented) BASIC to Pascal and   
    ml> ASM... the level of control and detail was great... many of the   
    ml> keywords were the same or similar...   
      
   I would say I am similar case (starting with Basic and Asm (Mons3/Gens3) on zx   
   spectrum) and then Pascal (scale of Borland products and then Delphi). That   
   time C++ was too "objective" for me ;-)   
      
   But I do not program in my job.   
      
    ml> the main thing i like about pascal is that it doesn't hold the gun,   
    ml> point it at your foot, and pull the trigger for you like some other   
    ml> languages do... pascal is a lot more structured than other   
      
   Understand your point. (I just thought about one factor and this is also to   
   live on that.)   
      
   Somebody else said is just syntax/language. If guy could be good programmer or   
   "not so good" - it does not matter which language he used.   
      
   I can (also) say going from asm/basic to pascal is easier. I can confirm that   
   to orient in bash, python, perl was (maybe only for me) esier.   
      
   Karel   
      
   ... 0508,45 0507,58 0506,71 0505,73 0504,42 0503,18 0502,30   
   --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707   
    * Origin: Plast DATA (2:423/39)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 90/1 103/705 120/340 601 154/10 203/0 221/1 6 242 360   
   SEEN-BY: 226/16 30 227/114 702 229/101 426 616 664 1014 240/5138 5832   
   SEEN-BY: 240/5853 249/206 317 400 280/464 5003 292/854 8125 317/3   
   SEEN-BY: 320/219 322/757 342/200 396/45 420/33 423/39 81 120 121 712/848   
   SEEN-BY: 770/1 2432/390 2454/119   
   PATH: 423/39 81 221/1 280/464 240/5832 229/426