Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> 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.
That explains in part why C took off. I never disagreed that C is more
popular. I'm only pointing out what a horrible language it is, and that the
designers of that language should have known better because better
constructs were already known at that time.
> 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?
We're talking about concepts that K+R were almost certainly aware of when
they were designing C. The concepts behind Algol and Pascal were well
publisized at the time. Unless K+R were hiding in a cave while designing C
and several years previously (and I really don't think so), they definitely
knew better.
********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts,
http://www.embedinc.com/products(978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
