Re: why the pascal family of languages (Pascal, Ada, Modula-2, 2, Oberon, Delphi, Algol, ...) failed compared to the C family?

[Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP>]

On 2014-07-17, Harvey White <hwhite3044@is.invalid> wrote:
> On 2014-07-16, Nasser M. Abbasi <nma@12000.org> 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.
>

It matters because if we can get people to start using a safer language
then maybe, just maybe, we might see a major reduction in the number
of security issues in common languages.

There's also no need for a LCD language to be an insecure LCD language.
Unfortunately, one of the reasons everyone goes for C is because it's
so widely available you can guarantee your code will work with every
platform/target/mainstream programming language out there.

In order to replace C with another safer LCD language, that other language
needs to be available on the same range of platforms/targets or people
will continue to write libraries designed for wide use in C simply
because they don't have any other choice at the moment.

>> 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.
>

That's not the case for VMS with it's common calling standard, at
least for traditional procedural languages.

>> 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.
>

That was back in the VAX days. There's been a movement towards C within
later VMS code and you can now write VMS device drivers in C and have
been able to do so for many years. (Unlike Ada, VMS is a part of my day
job.)

There's still a great amount of MACRO/BLISS around however. You would
have to ask on comp.os.vms for some numbers however because I don't
have a feeling for the VMS code base breakdown by the language used.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world