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:ac8:7f10:: with SMTP id f16mr4023627qtk.340.1622133907014;
        Thu, 27 May 2021 09:45:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:2b05:: with SMTP id r5mr6368168ybr.465.1622133906912;
 Thu, 27 May 2021 09:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!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 09:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3f0a77d7-f51b-c217-c16b-4b07767cad48@planet.nl>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=202.67.103.232; posting-account=S_MdrwoAAAD7T2pxG2e393dk6y0tc0Le
NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.67.103.232
References: <lq5qv9$hhk$1@speranza.aioe.org> <db900d69-5f84-4d67-bf82-eaacf0d6e265n@googlegroups.com>
 <3f0a77d7-f51b-c217-c16b-4b07767cad48@planet.nl>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <97840033-5904-4efb-91ec-e0c861ac1eadn@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 <robin.vowels@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 16:45:07 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:62030
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 5:55:42 PM UTC+10, ldries46 wrote:
> Op 27-5-2021 om 8:53 schreef Robin Vowels:
> > On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 at 10:25:17 PM UTC+10, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: 
> >> The first language I really liked was Pascal. 
> >> But the Pascal family of languages (including Ada) have 
> >> clearly failed to become popular, 
> > . 
> > Pascal and Algol 60 did not have string handling. 
> > Algol 60 did not have a defined I/O.
.
> Algol 60 wasn't a programming language
.
FALSE. ALGOL 58, the predecessor of ALGOL 60, was designed as a
programming language.
.
> but a method of describing a 
> mathematical proces in such a way that you could not fail in the way you 
> used that proces. That explained the lack of communicating with the 
> outside world. 
> But that made it simple to use it as a programming language. My first 
> sniff with programming was in 1966 on an Electrologica X8 which used 
> Algol 60 with its own set of I/O functions. 
> Seen the fact that Algol 60 was much earlier as Pascal I would not speak 
> of the Pascal-family but the Algol 60-family 
> For people interested there is on internet the Algol Reprt available.
> > I/O in Pascal was flawed. 
> > . 
> >> at least compared 
> >> to the C-family (C, C++, C#, ....) 
> >> 
> >> The question is why did this happen? 
> >> 
> >> My theory: C was used to develop Unix/Linux and 
> >> Windows, and this made it easier for applications 
> >> to be written in C/C++ since the interface to the OS 
> >> was easier. 
> > . 
> > I do not think that this has anything to with it at all.