Talk:Microsoft Pascal

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Microsoft Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Votes for deletion

This page was recently nominated for deletion, and the consensus decision was to keep it, merge it with another article, and/or redirect it to another article. The deletion debate is archived here. ugen 64 20:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Competition between Turbo Pascal and Microsoft Pascal

I removed the section below from the Turbo Pascal article. It was marked as unsourced in April [1], but nobody came. Since I was working on these tools then, I tried to modify it to make it NPOV'ed, but I fail. In fact it is just opinions, nothing here is really relevant about TP. The only real fact is that MS distributed the clone QP "for a while", but it is hardly relevant when looked at the whole picture of TP which spans more than 10 years. I copy this stuff here, in the fain hope that people trying to improve this article could use this material. AntoineL 17:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(and the number of TP clones is staggering) 88.159.64.210 (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

===2.3 Competition with Microsoft Pascal===

It is likely that Microsoft Pascal was dropped because of the competition provided by Turbo Pascal's good quality and low price.^{[citation needed]} Another theory is that Borland made an agreement with Microsoft to drop development of Turbo BASIC, a BASIC IDE that stems from Turbo Pascal, if Microsoft would stop developing Microsoft Pascal. For a while, Microsoft produced QuickPascal, which was almost 100% compatible with Turbo Pascal.^{[citation needed]}

Microsoft Pascal attraction

I was told that MS pascal 4 allowed to create much larger programs than TP at the time (before TP got protected mode in TP7), due to the available memorymodel comparable to "huge" (variable datasegment per module for global vars) in C land, while TP only supported "large" (one datasegment for global vars overall) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.64.210 (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

substantiate claim of common quirks

The paragraph that claims that Borland Pascal v.4 and Microsoft QuickPascal shared the quirk to "[...] occasionally ignore one or more lines of source code when said code was compiled" struck me. Not only am I unaware of this quirk (I have worked extensively with Borland Pascal v.4), I feel that the claim that QuickPascal has the same quirk should be substantiated (e.g. with a reference).
Thiadmer Riemersma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.211.83.48 (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who added it, but I can confirm that it is true. Both compilers will ignore the same lines of code, though there does not appear to be any predictability that I can see. However, on one point you are quite correct: a reference that supports the statement would be nice. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]