From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 11144 invoked from network); 21 May 2020 16:31:46 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 21 May 2020 16:31:46 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 4F5AC9C8B4; Fri, 22 May 2020 02:31:18 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F7D79C8DF; Fri, 22 May 2020 02:30:48 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id DBF4E9C8B7; Fri, 22 May 2020 02:30:45 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mcvoy.com (mcvoy.com [192.169.23.250]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92DCE9C8C0 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 02:30:43 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mcvoy.com (Postfix, from userid 3546) id EDF2E35E140; Thu, 21 May 2020 09:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 09:30:42 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Toby Thain Message-ID: <20200521163042.GQ12554@mcvoy.com> References: <8a2e9b1b-8890-a783-5b53-c8480c070f2e@telegraphics.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8a2e9b1b-8890-a783-5b53-c8480c070f2e@telegraphics.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Subject: Re: [TUHS] History of popularity of C X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:10:35PM -0400, Toby Thain wrote: > On 2020-05-21 11:27 AM, Tyler Adams wrote: > > Does anybody have any good resources on the history of the popularity of > > C? I'm looking for data to resolve a claim that C is so prolific and > > influential because it's so easy to write a C compiler. > > > > Tyler > > Based on recollections of C from mid-1980s until today, this claim > doesn't make sense for several reasons. Sorry, this is all anecdata or > recollection, not cited data: > > - inexpensive compiler availability was not very good until ~1990 or > later, but C had been taking off like wildfire for 10 years before that > > - developing good compilers is certainly not "easy" - and there were a > lot of mediocre vendor compilers despite (duplicated) investment > > - by the time gcc was mature (by some definition, but probably before > 1990) - something that happened largely as a reaction to the vendor > compiler situation - it was a large and complicated codebase even by > standards of the time > > - hobby/novelty/small/educational compilers are a relatively new thing > and arrived long after the C adoption curve was complete. The earliest > well known example I can think of is lcc (1994) but most are much newer. > > ...and probably quite a few other points. This matches my memory as well. I think I learned C in 1983 or 84, it just worked. To me it felt like it was PDP-11 assembler only nicer. The thing I liked about C is that you always felt like you were right on the metal, it didn't hide the fact that there was a computer under it. Very different feel from, say, Pascal. I think the fact that you could feel the machine under the language had a lot to do with it taking off. And what Toby said about compilers, oh, man, so true. Once you got out in the real world, gcc was buggy and slow, companies wanted to charge you at every step of the way for compilers that were marginally better than gcc at best. When gcc finally got good enough, I agree, around 1990 or so, it was a relief. You just used it and ignored the platform specific ones. G++ took a long time to be good enough.