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_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 27079 invoked from network); 23 May 2020 07:29:00 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 23 May 2020 07:29:00 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id D9FC99C92C; Sat, 23 May 2020 17:28:57 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FEE99C189; Sat, 23 May 2020 17:28:32 +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="dJYnevuT"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 4AE539C189; Sat, 23 May 2020 17:28:29 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-wm1-f51.google.com (mail-wm1-f51.google.com [209.85.128.51]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E3829C187 for ; Sat, 23 May 2020 17:28:28 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-wm1-f51.google.com with SMTP id t8so5766130wmi.0 for ; Sat, 23 May 2020 00:28:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=nTwFAJmU9JA7E3xjMkjq7Fjss6zWYJyOHPvBlXAJwNc=; b=dJYnevuTtroNIk4tZi5/ZnKe17ZdYFnahr5umdGI/gFyoVvEadzpmf1DWPNdV13WxV YvhwsuOpnk/wJfLXKHC1SNdWwRB3hjHCJS5GqpAPCczj1ATYcj8jRBHslrTdXvot47Ff UAOoVos8F9q8KuD1DcLU3p3ETo7M+F7l+ptx/N0B5PoIjD/CQcMXn5U44BOn0KbXgTlC NfKnYq1CulIkRVJ/8h44sbdvUYpM63ppm/e8PsdCdOgBJJu6otupIzenYRkhrI3F5cT+ /Yq7eim1sOf2QtEtz41Um+1ovBnU/1lxiRq3NZX4VRe5ohmpHY6K4nTKyKHhaK+pIJUS iHUw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=nTwFAJmU9JA7E3xjMkjq7Fjss6zWYJyOHPvBlXAJwNc=; b=F/c7iKS9K0Sci0kis2wvyBsx7TzpnlmR+pXueYOLL34mF50BZDn2wGt3Yf0A0oM7Q5 YC5FAbi/5oqEAzWah0Om1Qwh/9FDxiXF71NbSotZc3ADkJyrRqaJTijtoXRE2Y70vAPX 9eSbrpp2PpdzMFmOG5Z7wiMgAuJ04tO+rvEf4vm5pjegDZdBNPtLwtrshKkth2D1fBO+ +/oQ3GbUMnicdf2Zye00q0oQ6MZ7NO3fqai4YPJccU5qqno5kGyC7MqXd8FwGedG6SkA 5rZb4/V7UYtPCbRGgqFV/fqjXCIVxQzhcmMo6oYl4urElDR1l1auzqq8xpcbahNIj2NS uulw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531AMcZXbbndIH/e88FQ8g8uWN+d1HRvn5DexeZU50fE4FWJ6wIb p/adVZfcZgyOTTBjJfKpyco2zgWvF91qnS6vENGb6Ngm X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxFpPbSdbpEbk36I+gvy3ArwOqFrNHucLX6mdPSKkD//rwx/okJ+hqyjMTYrInnpuCFD64tCkR3nyVsithRrpc= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:4b02:: with SMTP id y2mr15736502wma.115.1590218906766; Sat, 23 May 2020 00:28:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a5d:444c:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sat, 23 May 2020 00:28:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <8a2e9b1b-8890-a783-5b53-c8480c070f2e@telegraphics.com.au> From: Andy Kosela Date: Sat, 23 May 2020 09:28:25 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: R9QwpWyqspU7jTfrKxGIvJ6a7JE Message-ID: To: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On 5/23/20, Greg A. Woods wrote: > > I would also argue that non-Unix C compilers actually drove the adoption > curve of C. Pascal tried to play catch-up, but just as with what > happened to me in university where it was one of the teaching languages, > C was just far more popular and though Pascal had a tiny head-start (in > terms of first-published books/manuals), C overtook it and had far more > staying power too (though indeed in the late 1980s there was a fair > battle going on in the pc/mac/amiga/etc world for Pascal). This is my recollection as well. In the late 80s with the introduction of really nice compilers for MS-DOS like Turbo C from Borland (1987), Watcom C 6.0 (1988) and mature versions of Microsoft C (which originally was based on Lattice C), the C future was solidified. The documentation coming with those compilers were also excellent. I still have tons of reference books from that period. It was a time when almost everybody was using pure C. I think C++ needed another 5-7 years to displace C in the application market. --A