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:9b96:: with SMTP id o22mr2350930qve.23.1622098398893;
        Wed, 26 May 2021 23:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:75d6:: with SMTP id q205mr2515561ybc.339.1622098398666;
 Wed, 26 May 2021 23:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Wed, 26 May 2021 23:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <lq5qv9$hhk$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=202.67.103.232; posting-account=S_MdrwoAAAD7T2pxG2e393dk6y0tc0Le
NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.67.103.232
References: <lq5qv9$hhk$1@speranza.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <db900d69-5f84-4d67-bf82-eaacf0d6e265n@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 06:53:18 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:62026
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.
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.
.
> VMS did not choose C (considered a huge 
> blunder by many. They choose Bliss 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLISS instead! and we 
> all know what happens to VMS. 
> 
> What is your theory on this? Was there another 
> reason or set of reasons? 
> 
> Can we all blame this success of the C family of 
> languages on Dennis Ritchie and Brian Kernighan 
> brilliance and it being used for Unix?