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 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Harvey White 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, 17 Jul 2014 11:08:25 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: FApZYy6HQCEf/VTdjzJczg.user.speranza.aioe.org X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:20996 Date: 2014-07-17T11:08:25+00:00 List-Id: On 2014-07-16, 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, at least compared > to the C-family (C, C++, C#, ....) > > The question is why did this happen? Another question is why does this matter? Popularity does help in that people still write toolchains. Otherwise, history seems to show good and popular are inversely related. And technology seems to be going in the direction of least common denominator. Lots to be said here. Not enough time to say it. > 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 think so. The best language to write code on a given OS is almost always the language the OS was written in. That alone has been enough to prop up C and C-derivatives long after they should have been killed. There really isn't anything else to code with in Linux and UNIX if you need full system interface. And as many have complained this also affects library utility and access. > 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. That is not because of not choosing C. And I believe by now most of of VMS is written in their MACRO assembly language rather than BLISS but I'm not sure it's relevant. The issue AIUI is somewhat tangential to Ada's problems. VMS people seem to present a good case that VMS is really a good, safe OS. Linux is cheap, cheap and that's the overriding concern these past few decades. It only gets worse as time goes by. > > What is your theory on this? Was there another > reason or set of reasons? I've always understood the popularity of C was because of what you said and because of politics and ideology. The C people feel special that they can fight corporate America however and whatever that means and they also pride themselves on being able to navigate the minefield of a language that wasn't designed but rather just evolved (putting it kindly). C doesn't require them to play by the rules- playing by the rules is a nasty reminder of those bad bad corporations they're rebelling against. Chaos and sloppiness are a sick form of freedom for those people, while rigor is a symbol of everything they despise. If it were just laziness it wouldn't have gone this far. Make no mistake it is mostly politics and ideology. And their junk does run everywhere...badly though. Look at the huge number of critical errors and security holes in C-based software. Sure we can say there are more errors in C code because there is simply more C code and of course there is some truth to that. But C is a very unsafe, tricky and poorly-designed language and it and the culture behind it promotes dangerous practices. > > 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? I don't consider those two guys brilliant. From a technical standpoint I don't think anyone can. Dennis Ritchie was an effective coder. Kernighan is a good writer and probably a half-decent mathematician. Together they were bad designers. Nothing about UNIX was designed. It's about the biggest mess that ever lived. Nothing is done properly, there are holes and edge cases and just plain stuff that should never have been done in everything they did. They might even be responsible for today's portable piece of junk is good enough philosophy. They were good marketers and effective preachers and they were able to rally a whole political movement based on corp. bashing notably while being paid by Bell Labs to do so. Giving away UNIX to universities was a big help in adopting C. I think the combination of their manufactured Davy and Goliath self-image along with good penetration in the liberal "college" scene was all it took to get to where we are now. It is more than a little ironic that guys from Bell Labs should be revered as corp. busters though. Most of the unwashed masses need religious leaders (Stallman, to wit) and a religion (Gnu/FSF), not a good programming environment or language. Harvey