Re: Fw: C-Bus Pascal Automation Controller (PAC) - MinReview

["christopher purves" <CHRIS_PURVES@xxxxxxx>]

I like mine :)

PASCAL is also rather easy to read and write. Its a fairly clear language
for people who are not programmers. Don't get me wrong - compared to modern
languages PASCAL is the poor relative, but, like BASIC, you can learn to
write it in no time.

Chris


>From: Ian Lowe <ianlowe@xxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Fw: [ukha_d] C-Bus Pascal Automation Controller (PAC) -
>MinReview
>Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:36:38 +0000
>
>On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 11:21 +0000, Gareth Cook wrote:
> > Rob
> >
> > Is there any level of interaction with Comfort with the PAC ?
That is,
>are
> > there any ways to gain access to Comfort parameters in order to
do CBUS
> > logic ?
> >
> > G.
>
>What an odd product...
>
>I had kinda assumed that Pascal was just a codename like
"vista" or
>"Longhorn", but no it's actually using Pascal. That has to be
one of the
>most obtuse choices for an embedded language - and makes you wonder how
>robust it's going to be in use.
>
>It's a strange position - Clipsal will never cease to amaze me with
>their ability to produce products that seem to have been envisioned
>designed and shipped under the influence of excessive amounts of
>fosters...
>
>You go to the effort of building a (by all accounts) rock solid wired
>control protocol, and make a major pitch out of reliability as your
>selling point... then introduce a set of RF components - with *none* of
>the advantages that the previous company position was built on...
>
>meh.
>
>there seem to be a whole clutch of technologies just floating at the
>breakthrough point - hopefully some worthy competition will sharpen up
>things.
>
>Ian.
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>