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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.236.137.13 with SMTP id x13mr5520441yhi.32.1405783234712; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 08:20:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.82.9 with SMTP id g9mr815qgd.12.1405783234661; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 08:20:34 -0700 (PDT) Path: border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!v10no1464447qac.1!news-out.google.com!cz11ni6302qab.1!nntp.google.com!v10no1464443qac.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 08:20:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <00fe71da-d540-491e-b316-7c46c9e4a27e@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=92.109.179.4; posting-account=uePmQwoAAADTqdMkQ5mqQNa8zVpjxCa1 NNTP-Posting-Host: 92.109.179.4 References: <9a51b46f-c70e-4266-9b44-dfb50c8a7191@googlegroups.com> <00fe71da-d540-491e-b316-7c46c9e4a27e@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2a57df6a-a5cc-4c09-9621-f7e3cacc479e@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: gvdschoot@gmail.com Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 15:20:34 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:187712 Date: 2014-07-19T08:20:34-07:00 List-Id: On Saturday, July 19, 2014 4:56:09 PM UTC+2, Dan'l Miller wrote: > On Saturday, July 19, 2014 9:12:07 AM UTC-5, gvds...@gmail.com wrote: >=20 > > I think there is also another issue. >=20 > > C, like Microsoft, has the benefit of that there is only *one*. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Apparently, you are not old enough to have programmed in C prior the the = 1988 ANSI C. There was no agreement at all among the various widely-diverg= ing flavors of C on nonUnix platforms prior to ANSI C 1988 (and then endors= ed as ISO C 1990). Even on Unix, every Unix licensee had licensed a differ= ent era of Unix, hence getting a different Issue of C compiler. Issue 3 C = was drastically different than Issue 4, which in turn was drastically diffe= rent than Issue 5. IIRC, the Issue 5 to Issue 6 transition was right aroun= d the big SVR4/SunOS versus OSF1 Unix wars, which further fragmented a dive= rgent Unix world until GNU GCC ended all of that debate by becoming the dom= inant C compiler. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Even today, there is *one* C as long as one programs in ANSI C 1988, not = C1999 and definitely not C2011, because far less than 100% of C compilers s= upport the C99 and C11 feature-set. For example, Microsoft has stated that= they 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++ = instead of expecting C99 or C11. Still, all the languages I mentioned before have clear benefits compared wi= th C. They are all a lot more safe and better designed. If for instance uni= versities could just pick a systems language and cooperate in the field of = systems programming, or for instance the IETF, that would be a clear sign.= =20 However I am sure that as long as we use C, bugs such as Heartbleed will en= ter the news on a massive scale.