From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.66.66.163 with SMTP id g3mr6221423pat.3.1405781769810; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 07:56:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.30.52 with SMTP id c49mr48599qgc.7.1405781769718; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 07:56:09 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!h18no4094322igc.0!news-out.google.com!cz11ni6302qab.1!nntp.google.com!v10no1461282qac.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 07:56:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.57.209.48; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.57.209.48 References: <9a51b46f-c70e-4266-9b44-dfb50c8a7191@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <00fe71da-d540-491e-b316-7c46c9e4a27e@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: why the pascal family of languages (Pascal, Ada, Modula-2,2,Oberon, Delphi, Algol,...) failed compared to the C family? From: "Dan'l Miller" Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 14:56:09 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 2739 X-Received-Body-CRC: 696442227 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:21060 Date: 2014-07-19T07:56:09-07:00 List-Id: On Saturday, July 19, 2014 9:12:07 AM UTC-5, gvds...@gmail.com wrote: > I think there is also another issue. > C, like Microsoft, has the benefit of that there is only *one*. Apparently, you are not old enough to have programmed in C prior the the 19= 88 ANSI C. There was no agreement at all among the various widely-divergin= g flavors of C on nonUnix platforms prior to ANSI C 1988 (and then endorsed= as ISO C 1990). Even on Unix, every Unix licensee had licensed a differen= t era of Unix, hence getting a different Issue of C compiler. Issue 3 C wa= s drastically different than Issue 4, which in turn was drastically differe= nt than Issue 5. IIRC, the Issue 5 to Issue 6 transition was right around = the big SVR4/SunOS versus OSF1 Unix wars, which further fragmented a diverg= ent Unix world until GNU GCC ended all of that debate by becoming the domin= ant C compiler. Even today, there is *one* C as long as one programs in ANSI C 1988, not C1= 999 and definitely not C2011, because far less than 100% of C compilers sup= port the C99 and C11 feature-set. For example, Microsoft has stated that t= hey will *never* update their C compiler to be fully C99 or C11 compliant; = Microsoft has stated that C is for legacy only and that new features of C++= will be only ones appearing, so switch to a C-like subset of modern C++ in= stead of expecting C99 or C11.