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 1884 invoked from network); 26 May 2020 16:22:11 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 26 May 2020 16:22:11 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 768049C934; Wed, 27 May 2020 02:22:10 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4E579C6B1; Wed, 27 May 2020 02:21:44 +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="JoLHrj9e"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 77B469C6B1; Wed, 27 May 2020 02:21:42 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-vs1-f46.google.com (mail-vs1-f46.google.com [209.85.217.46]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C24A993D53 for ; Wed, 27 May 2020 02:21:41 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-vs1-f46.google.com with SMTP id o26so12094385vsr.10 for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 09:21:41 -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=W37eH0QeGzGpxJBkCTcATJnOB1dsfvezvg1Kjs/UED4=; b=JoLHrj9eRICdQMGWFyrUtJtb6sCB/USjzxAapMAu3Bmsqwrge2mb1RSq5baiAsUwNH FoayTjpWGIac6rBUkMvmj9yCNUGD86Yp7UffOfZCmo1djuH0jmbCnp6XR4v4U3NUssrt H16Kv3lACWpIsfxTQaMVy//hsokPirU3gVLgdwh962w3uFL0jC48DR/V6hm+tI9/QQvi CjIlMhEwd7+pUd2WQUIGGeFRWsrGLvylsqqEJ1BOJmtFMEvLQ2huWY0l1ykC5RhgpIL0 ECBHLvbh5XIuHCahGEmdlAxljLyp5PBcu+XRVs9p359+jTkf+NvI9JUpgT6dISxllfoE ifRA== 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=W37eH0QeGzGpxJBkCTcATJnOB1dsfvezvg1Kjs/UED4=; b=Kiss5l/WlmXLeAMOWyHoEAs6f8O4fTJseYMMv76pD0HR5op/5Wf+miT/zZxCerbBo7 wg4OWcOjA6UqKdVT5Q1urHqLH+rJmB7vVVozA4SwMBwzSN/6zi6NmHuo4LJiZGv6Hk2V 7Wyg3vbKZ0+I3E0D+5CP1Pgmjhmr29UwrfaYhfVqHHa3j8au54QquXZlatUUkeHEvz9D 8qP+I0l6kMdqU1bsuKYHCIbSPo+HIPZkX44as5EL0rbUFQyENbMzpEgSono+O3o1flRo hD9zar8GPmjPZ+AUk+4yvgqL2QIymeiUKfsLg04v1iv3vGdLCYxlDr3tVbLShROwx5Et CKQg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533XG5K5ZnOP39Jcu9eRzIPZT/AZ+6C0nHks/FrKcYO8ccve1xpz jhz5Q/MkcrCXSI7+Q9BV/amNm+iWFY6BMqAYnPZBBrEm0XQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxT7zoFQrpoAekWJN7argclnV00vuc21O+7bw7hZElVH+iNfjLTWoPOmm+UkhuZmXuSoC62k9VLSwARvvA5VT0= X-Received: by 2002:a67:f4cf:: with SMTP id s15mr1503059vsn.201.1590510100839; Tue, 26 May 2020 09:21:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8a2e9b1b-8890-a783-5b53-c8480c070f2e@telegraphics.com.au> <9e5933a166ece32b4fb17c6bbb563873@firemail.de> In-Reply-To: <9e5933a166ece32b4fb17c6bbb563873@firemail.de> From: Christopher Browne Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 12:21:28 -0400 Message-ID: To: Thomas Paulsen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000092835505a68f7d60" 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" --00000000000092835505a68f7d60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 12:01, Thomas Paulsen wrote: > >Dr. Lions himself) it was emphasised to us that it was not a production > >language bur a *teaching* language; > > In the early 90ths I written some larger programs in Turbo Pascal after > years of intensively working with my favored C&C++ language, and was > surprised how well designed the Borland language was. Thus, recently I > installed Free-Pascal with its comfortable IDE and since then I'm wondering > why they always inventing new languages as these 'old' C&Pascal languages > are so well designed and implemented, that I can't imagine that anything > else is really needed. > I remember the fighting going on at that time. I did some Pascal in about 1986, with one of the Waterloo compilers, and found it mildly a pain in the neck; it was a reasonably-nearly-strict version of the academic language, and was painful for non-academic programming for the reasons normally thrown about. In grad school, I TA'ed a course that was using TurboPascal, and it was definitely a reasonable extension towards usability for larger programs that needed more sophisticated environmental interactions. The compiler was decently fast (unlike Ada, anyone??? ;-) ), and the makers were selective and adequately opinionated as to their extensions. And I fully recall the split ongoing, as academic folk would regard TurboPascal as "non-conformant" with the standard, whilst bwk's missive on "Why Pascal Is Not My Favorite Language" provides a good explanation... And bwk nicely observed, "Because the language is so impotent, it must be extended. But each group extends Pascal in its own direction, to make it look like whatever language they really want." The Modula family seemed like the better direction; those were still Pascal-ish, but had nice intentional extensions so that they were not nearly so "impotent." I recall it being quite popular, once upon a time, to write code in Modula-2, and run it through a translator to mechanically transform it into a compatible subset of Ada for those that needed DOD compatibility. The Modula-2 compilers were wildly smaller and faster for getting the code working, you'd only run the M2A part once in a while (probably overnight!) -- When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?" --00000000000092835505a68f7d60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 12:01, Thomas Paul= sen <thomas.paulsen@firema= il.de> wrote:
>Dr. Lions himself) it was emphasised t= o us that it was not a production
>language bur a *teaching* language;

In the early 90ths I written some larger programs in Turbo Pascal after yea= rs of intensively working with my favored C&C++ language, and was surpr= ised how well designed the Borland language was. Thus, recently I installed= Free-Pascal with its comfortable IDE and since then I'm wondering why = they always inventing new languages as these 'old' C&Pascal lan= guages are so well designed and implemented, that I can't imagine that = anything else is really needed.

I remem= ber the fighting going on at that time.=C2=A0

I did some Pascal in about 1986, with one of the Waterloo compilers, and f= ound it mildly a pain in the neck; it was a reasonably-nearly-strict versio= n of the academic language, and was painful for non-academic programming fo= r the reasons normally thrown about.

In grad schoo= l, I TA'ed a course that was using TurboPascal, and it was definitely a= reasonable extension towards usability for larger programs that needed mor= e sophisticated environmental interactions.=C2=A0 The compiler was decently= fast (unlike Ada, anyone??? ;-) ), and the makers were selective and adequ= ately opinionated as to their extensions.

And I fu= lly recall the split ongoing, as academic folk would regard TurboPascal as = "non-conformant" with the standard, whilst bwk's missive on &= quot;Why Pascal Is Not My Favorite Language" provides a good explanati= on...

And bwk nicely observed, "Because the = language is so impotent, it must be extended.=C2=A0 But each gr= oup extends Pascal in its own direction, to make it look like whatever langu= age they really want."

The Modula family seemed= like the better direction; those were still Pascal-ish, but had nice inten= tional extensions so that they were not nearly so "impotent."=C2= =A0 I recall it being quite popular, once upon a time, to write code in Mod= ula-2, and run it through a translator to mechanically transform it into a = compatible subset of Ada for those that needed DOD compatibility.=C2=A0 The= Modula-2 compilers were wildly smaller and faster for getting the code wor= king, you'd only run the M2A part once in a while (probably overnight!)=
--
When conf= ronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, = "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
--00000000000092835505a68f7d60--