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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 22637 invoked from network); 22 May 2020 09:52:32 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 22 May 2020 09:52:32 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 6943C9C6BC; Fri, 22 May 2020 19:52:29 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B8349C5EE; Fri, 22 May 2020 19:52:01 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="N5iG4yUJ"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id AF8699C5E8; Fri, 22 May 2020 19:51:58 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-lj1-f182.google.com (mail-lj1-f182.google.com [209.85.208.182]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BBC59C5E5 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 19:51:57 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-lj1-f182.google.com with SMTP id o14so11929627ljp.4 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 02:51:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SBclSNQhudW+GfFwiC2yt59sEJ5+YVDY5XqWRY2dZQw=; b=N5iG4yUJDnQlbkwLmS4YhJlH74piiyq8FPsuWE6KO+/z1qVoOlcyG4RIWWC0Fsb/mS Rma339/JLMZlU3kyQkgELJQwHd3ds5+iSTpriZlRkSbKjBZPu/R5o7027G5u8ziTQvpO ydDHfvhBU9bl+U3t1Or9KCTC4b8ZEOcaPmvudNl/kiuiuETaA3t82sDUTC2LvqyNypQ+ Pfz0e/gShgva8VcspoCPXVExh6fxd87FvcR7KOBSuB5ohE2vvuS2oXdAy+AbAgpRfF0x nlvOQ3kBouzqYHaBNzmvWO2UG8d10rpq8tBn7F4peROf0uhtsQPBIxkMFG1JThcRNQ2N KK8Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SBclSNQhudW+GfFwiC2yt59sEJ5+YVDY5XqWRY2dZQw=; b=GfqcwItp1kgDCX+/V2e4xvNWGoce34+MaRoU/jL5RCmEXGdOXdsUsmY81NQ0Psuifk DXqGefA9qMroWfHi/gB7ymsizljCFoNCLL3gaFO+9UAP9UR/4QDO4izJWqfsohiQOAd5 8kJamt4JY6uZn5VSMN3FDxrSJWhTAYaRWUDb9FZMJpswXvSzTnpoRiYRpg/xmpkSaoBI +ENundW6BOxMOeus1VVeKDDmPypIs3RVflxdBJDGNtJ9ly/+Jyn9xLXolrdKZ81JHGBg e8a74mBP1OEh2LClihLGaxPCC5gbViW5m0k8OtBNKNrBgxXUww/i7U5nizpT4TsBkTq3 4YTw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533rEwgi2s8BULU5qyWnli8qeIn7AIKdE66/bHq5bfFWHkqb8dl+ oAp42Acn7qfB0LP1Ex4i3FxOd6g+bT/cbSHVlw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx6TAGkjzY+p1v2Dx5YC94L1R+R/J2koVm6i6iCys6EpGJtqV5KkVRJ4+BTcT3fNsVwJJLuJZLOTV4nDBQmTR4= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:3e09:: with SMTP id l9mr6826823lja.260.1590141115484; Fri, 22 May 2020 02:51:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200521182817.08C0318C093@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: From: Tyler Adams Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 12:51:43 +0300 Message-ID: To: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000054cf6605a639948d" 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 , Noel Chiappa Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --00000000000054cf6605a639948d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Awesome, looks like my theory was completely wrong. Here's what it looks like to me, please correct me as needed. C's popularity has 2 distinct phases. 1972-1987 Unix drove C. Writing a functional PCC for a particular architecture was easy, but not unusually so compared to other languages at the time. 1987- gcc made C uniquely free to compile, so people chose to write C because it was free and already popular. Perl also came out in 1987, and afaik that was always free, but C still took off because there was so much room for multiple languages. So, now Im curious about embedded systems. In my limited experience, every "embedded system" I programmed for from 2002-2011 had C as its primary language. After 2011, I stopped programming embedded systems, so I don't know after that. Why was C so dominant in this space? Is it because adding a backend to gcc was free, C was already well known, and C was sufficiently performant? Tyler On Fri, May 22, 2020, 11:53 Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote: > Noel Chiappa writes: > > > I suspect the real reason for C's sucess was the nature of the language. > > When I first saw it (ca. 1976), it struck me as a quantum improvement > over > > its contemporaries. > > Paul Graham expressed it like this: > > "It seems to me that there have been two really clean, consistent > models of programming so far: the C model and the Lisp model. These > two seem points of high ground, with swampy lowlands between them." > > -tih > -- > Most people who graduate with CS degrees don't understand the significance > of Lisp. Lisp is the most important idea in computer science. --Alan Kay > --00000000000054cf6605a639948d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Awesome, looks like my theory was compl= etely wrong. Here's what it looks like to me, please correct me as need= ed.

C's popularity h= as 2 distinct phases.

1972-1987 Unix drove C. Writing a functional PCC for a part= icular architecture was easy, but not unusually so compared to other langua= ges at the time.

1987- g= cc made C uniquely free to compile, so people chose to write C because it w= as free and already popular.=C2=A0

Perl also came out in 1987, and afaik that was always free, but = C still took off because there was so much room for multiple languages.

So, now Im curious about em= bedded systems. In my limited experience, every "embedded system"= I programmed for from 2002-2011 had C as its primary language. After 2011,= I stopped programming embedded systems, so I don't know after that. Wh= y was C so dominant in this space? Is it because adding a backend to gcc wa= s free, C was already well known, and C was sufficiently performant?
<= div dir=3D"auto">
Tyler


On= Fri, May 22, 2020, 11:53 Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <tih@hamartun.priv.no> wrote:
Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> writes= :

> I suspect the real reason for C's sucess was the nature of the lan= guage.
> When I first saw it (ca. 1976), it struck me as a quantum improvement = over
> its contemporaries.

Paul Graham expressed it like this:

"It seems to me that there have been two really clean, consistent
models of programming so far: the C model and the Lisp model. These
two seem points of high ground, with swampy lowlands between them."
-tih
--
Most people who graduate with CS degrees don't understand the significa= nce
of Lisp.=C2=A0 Lisp is the most important idea in computer science.=C2=A0 -= -Alan Kay
--00000000000054cf6605a639948d--