From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 X-Received: by 2002:a0c:e744:: with SMTP id g4mr4764062qvn.52.1622134168068; Thu, 27 May 2021 09:49:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a25:5ec2:: with SMTP id s185mr6424739ybb.303.1622134167901; Thu, 27 May 2021 09:49:27 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 09:49:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87wnrkf9pr.fsf@nightsong.com> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=202.67.103.232; posting-account=S_MdrwoAAAD7T2pxG2e393dk6y0tc0Le NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.67.103.232 References: <5afvagd0g4uajs1ji35v3lorkgb2kd56qu@4ax.com> <87wnrkf9pr.fsf@nightsong.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <13c0e25d-c470-4819-9690-439716b66a2en@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: Robin Vowels Injection-Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 16:49:28 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:62031 List-Id: On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 2:00:18 AM UTC+10, Paul Rubin wrote: > Dennis Lee Bieber writes: > >>Algol 60 did not have a defined I/O. > > Just curious -- do you mean the I/O was all by linked in > > function/subroutines rather than being keywords in the language? > > Yeah, something like that. But there were successful Algol 60 > implementations, including on Burroughs and Univac mainframes. > C. A. R. Hoare supposedly called Algol 60 "a language so far ahead of > its time, that it was not only an improvement on its predecessors, but > also on nearly all its successors. > >>I/O in Pascal was flawed. . > > Well... It probably worked quite well in the original OS... . But it didn't. That's the point. You couldn't write general algorithms in it. > > It wasn't just the I/O: > > http://doc.cat-v.org/bell_labs/why_pascal/ > > Borland Turbo Pascal was very popular and apparently practical, though. > I never used it but I have the impression that it (like most deployed > Pascal implementations) somehow supplied workarounds to the limitations > described in the paper above. > > These were interesting: > > * Things Turbo Pascal is Smaller Than: > https://prog21.dadgum.com/116.html > > * Personal History of compilation speed part 2 (scroll down for the > part about Turbo Pascal): > https://prog21.dadgum.com/47.html > > The binary of Turbo Pascal was eventually released for no cost download, > but apparently the source code was never released. That is > disappointing based on how cool the above articles make it sound.