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=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2021 11:51:19 -0500 From: Dennis Lee Bieber Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: why the pascal family of languages (Pascal, Ada, Modula-2,2,Oberon, Delphi, Algol,...) failed compared to the C family? Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2021 12:51:19 -0400 Organization: IISS Elusive Unicorn Message-ID: References: <62a51520-f7bc-4bbf-b0bf-fdfb1c1a9dadn@googlegroups.com> <6cb08045-9dbf-485d-8166-0e9600b4c97cn@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272 X-No-Archive: YES MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-H5iAesu6QtuoGrsGceZRKTPU45+yUpMp30kssuyM3oFgl+zWyv501OtgFr16R6fXMlpSJEnekqhj1qD!8Y3J15O/PHliiXxS/LcXqTMQqJrkVmai3tbi2/khTtqqGLVtmWJiWZj0UhKUxylj9frpBWfr X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Original-Bytes: 2661 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:62109 List-Id: On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 18:29:09 -0700 (PDT), Gabriele Galeotti declaimed the following: >I understand. No doubt that also the pcode was successful, but it is a pity >that it couldn't make the point in the 90s, at least on microcomputer-class >machines. > Faster processors, and the "standardization" on IBM's architecture, may have contributed... Since there was only "one" machine the portability of P-code (same object files, just provide a new interpreter layer for different architecture) wasn't a factor anymore. >Still talking about the Apple II, I think one of the reason is that it was way >too complicated for the average user, with no less than 5 thick manuals >and an underlying OS like the UCSD that was a radical departure in >those times. While the UCSD compiler was reasonable, the UCSD OS that went with it was a bit of a pain. All files had to be contiguous (no jumping to next free sector), so one ended up periodically compressing the disk so files were at the front and all free-space consolidated. That also meant only one open output file per floppy drive, as output files opened in the largest contiguous free-space. -- Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN wlfraed@ix.netcom.com http://wlfraed.microdiversity.freeddns.org/