Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Russell McMahon wrote:
>> Both languages are "bad" given the appropriate assumption set. For
>> sensible everyday use it's harder to find an assumption set that
>> makes C good :-). But it has its place, preferably in suitably
>> expert hands.
>
> Again, where's the advantage? Experts understand the importance of
> code readability and maintainence. What exactly is it that such a
> expert want's to do that Pascal won't allow?
It seems you answered this question: the original Pascal is "essentially
unusable" (your words). There are a number of usable dialects, but no
usable standard Pascal. OTOH, there is a C standard.
Even though the standardized C is arguably inferior to a number of
Pascal dialects, the fact that there is a standard has probably been one
of the drivers of the popularity of C (at least outside the *x world).
FWIW, I think the time scale you cite is misleading. I think you'd have
to start with the first compiler that was usable for the implementation
of an operating system. We know when that was for C; when was it for
Pascal?
Gerhard
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
