Ah .. but all the Pascal folks got on the C++ bandwagon when it was clear C
had won.  Frankly, the death of C++ IMO was all the crap added too it, but
we have moved in COFF territory and off of Unix and Unix philosophy I think.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 11:01 AM Bakul Shah <bakul@iitbombay.org> wrote:

> please don’t blame c++ on pascal folks. stroustrup had nothing to do with
> pascal.
>
> On Dec 9, 2020, at 7:41 AM, Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
>
> 
> Amen Doug.
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 11:36 PM M Douglas McIlroy <
> m.douglas.mcilroy@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>> To paraphrase John Cocke (speaking about Fortran): one must understand
>> that Unix commands are not a logical language. They are a natural
>> language--in the sense that they developed by organic evolution, not
>> "intelligent design".
>>
> But I offer a suggestion that another dimension that should be forgotten
> in time scale and the economics within.
>
> When things evolve they do so on different clocks that are not
> necessarily linear.   *i.e. *what was 'better' (winning) today, but might
> not be considered so tomorrow, however could yet prove otherwise sometime
> later.  I use programming languages as a great example...   There was a
> huge C vs Pascal debate, that C 'won' - but I've always said the rise of
> C++ came from the Pascal folks that could say "C didn't win."  From the
> ashes of C++ we have Java, Go, and Rust.
>
> My point is that   "intelligent design" doesn't necessarily guarantee
> goodness or for that matter,complete logical thinking.
>
> My own take on this is what I call "Cole's Law"   *Simple economics
> always beats sophisticated architecture.*
> What you call *organic evolution* is what I think of what makes the *best
> economic sense* for the user and that is a function of the time scale and
> available resources at the time of creation/deployment.
>
> Clem
>
>