Was Dennis Ritchie being too modest in this quote about C and Pascal?Where does this esoteric Pascal operator...
Why did some of my point & shoot film photos come back with one third light white or orange?
Can someone publish a story that happened to you?
Contradiction proof for inequality of P and NP?
How can I practically buy stocks?
How to not starve gigantic beasts
can anyone help me with this awful query plan?
How to pronounce 'c++' in Spanish
Is there a way to generate a list of distinct numbers such that no two subsets ever have an equal sum?
Like totally amazing interchangeable sister outfits II: The Revenge
How do I reattach a shelf to the wall when it ripped out of the wall?
bldc motor, esc and battery draw, nominal vs peak
Coordinate my way to the name of the (video) game
How to prevent z-fighting in OpenSCAD?
Did the BCPL programming language support floats?
How can Republicans who favour free markets, consistently express anger when they don't like the outcome of that choice?
Two field separators (colon and space) in awk
"The cow" OR "a cow" OR "cows" in this context
'It addicted me, with one taste.' Can 'addict' be used transitively?
Why does Mind Blank stop the Feeblemind spell?
Why did C use the -> operator instead of reusing the . operator?
How would 10 generations of living underground change the human body?
How to denote matrix elements succinctly?
Is the claim "Employers won't employ people with no 'social media presence'" realistic?
Why was the Spitfire's elliptical wing almost uncopied by other aircraft of World War 2?
Was Dennis Ritchie being too modest in this quote about C and Pascal?
Where does this esoteric Pascal operator come from?What was the first C compiler for the Mac?When were the analogs of the C operators “break” and “continue” introduced in Pascal?What was the point of Apple Pascal having its own file system?Why was UNIX never backported to the PDP-7?Why was nil defined as a reserved word in Pascal?What caused the downfall of Pascal?x86 as a Pascal Machine?Was there ever a compiler type that was just large enough to contain a memory segment?Why is the following p-Code generated by the Apple 3 pascal compiler?
In his 1993 conference proceeding The Development of the C Language, Dennis Ritchie stated
Successors
C and even B have several direct descendants, though they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny.
Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?
We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C). Some languages may be descended from both.
(I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)
c pascal
asked yesterday
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
2,24431236
add a comment |
In his 1993 conference proceeding The Development of the C Language, Dennis Ritchie stated
Successors
C and even B have several direct descendants, though they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny.
Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?
We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C). Some languages may be descended from both.
(I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)
c pascal
asked yesterday
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
2,24431236
15
It's difficult to say without knowing the context, but given Ritchie's opinion about Pascal, I'd interpret "they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny" as a tongue-in-cheek criticism along the lines of "Pascal was so bad it needed lots of successors to at least get a few things right". If this reading is correct, being "too modest" isn't what this is about...
– dirkt
yesterday
Aren't some features of C itself derived from Pascal? So if you're taking this definition in the loosest sense, all descendants of C are also descendants of Pascal, (if not direct descendants) so Pascal would obviously have to have more.
– Darrel Hoffman
yesterday
1
@Darrel Pascal and C are contemporaneous; features of C which look like Pascal are more likely to come from Algol (which both C and Pascal derive from).
– Stephen Kitt
12 hours ago
add a comment |
In his 1993 conference proceeding The Development of the C Language, Dennis Ritchie stated
Successors
C and even B have several direct descendants, though they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny.
Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?
We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C). Some languages may be descended from both.
(I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)
c pascal
asked yesterday
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
2,24431236
In his 1993 conference proceeding The Development of the C Language, Dennis Ritchie stated
Successors
C and even B have several direct descendants, though they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny.
Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?
We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C). Some languages may be descended from both.
(I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)
c pascal
c pascal
asked yesterday
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
2,24431236
asked yesterday
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
2,24431236
asked yesterday
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
2,24431236
asked yesterday
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
2,24431236
asked yesterday
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
2,24431236
2,24431236
15
It's difficult to say without knowing the context, but given Ritchie's opinion about Pascal, I'd interpret "they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny" as a tongue-in-cheek criticism along the lines of "Pascal was so bad it needed lots of successors to at least get a few things right". If this reading is correct, being "too modest" isn't what this is about...
– dirkt
yesterday
Aren't some features of C itself derived from Pascal? So if you're taking this definition in the loosest sense, all descendants of C are also descendants of Pascal, (if not direct descendants) so Pascal would obviously have to have more.
– Darrel Hoffman
yesterday
1
@Darrel Pascal and C are contemporaneous; features of C which look like Pascal are more likely to come from Algol (which both C and Pascal derive from).
– Stephen Kitt
12 hours ago
add a comment |
15
It's difficult to say without knowing the context, but given Ritchie's opinion about Pascal, I'd interpret "they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny" as a tongue-in-cheek criticism along the lines of "Pascal was so bad it needed lots of successors to at least get a few things right". If this reading is correct, being "too modest" isn't what this is about...
– dirkt
yesterday
Aren't some features of C itself derived from Pascal? So if you're taking this definition in the loosest sense, all descendants of C are also descendants of Pascal, (if not direct descendants) so Pascal would obviously have to have more.
– Darrel Hoffman
yesterday
1
@Darrel Pascal and C are contemporaneous; features of C which look like Pascal are more likely to come from Algol (which both C and Pascal derive from).
– Stephen Kitt
12 hours ago
15
15
It's difficult to say without knowing the context, but given Ritchie's opinion about Pascal, I'd interpret "they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny" as a tongue-in-cheek criticism along the lines of "Pascal was so bad it needed lots of successors to at least get a few things right". If this reading is correct, being "too modest" isn't what this is about...
– dirkt
yesterday
It's difficult to say without knowing the context, but given Ritchie's opinion about Pascal, I'd interpret "they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny" as a tongue-in-cheek criticism along the lines of "Pascal was so bad it needed lots of successors to at least get a few things right". If this reading is correct, being "too modest" isn't what this is about...
– dirkt
yesterday
Aren't some features of C itself derived from Pascal? So if you're taking this definition in the loosest sense, all descendants of C are also descendants of Pascal, (if not direct descendants) so Pascal would obviously have to have more.
– Darrel Hoffman
yesterday
Aren't some features of C itself derived from Pascal? So if you're taking this definition in the loosest sense, all descendants of C are also descendants of Pascal, (if not direct descendants) so Pascal would obviously have to have more.
– Darrel Hoffman
yesterday
1
1
@Darrel Pascal and C are contemporaneous; features of C which look like Pascal are more likely to come from Algol (which both C and Pascal derive from).
– Stephen Kitt
12 hours ago
@Darrel Pascal and C are contemporaneous; features of C which look like Pascal are more likely to come from Algol (which both C and Pascal derive from).
– Stephen Kitt
12 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest?
I’m not sure modesty plays a part here; I don’t see any statement of value attached to the size of a language’s family.
As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?
Yes, he was correct; the main descendants of C by 1993 are listed in the paper:
- Concurrent C
- Objective C
- C*
- C++
Pascal had many more by 1993, including
- the Modula family of languages
- the Oberon family
- Concurrent Pascal
- Object Pascal
- Ada
As you mention yourself, later languages tried to integrate lessons learned from both C-related and Pascal-related languages, and they all derive from Algol anyway. (Pascal itself started off as suggested improvements to Algol X, which weren’t accepted into the language.)
The reason Pascal is at the root of a larger family tree hasn’t been evoked yet.
Pascal was designed by Niklaus Wirth, a researcher whose work focused on studying programming itself, including the use of programming languages as teaching tools and structuring tools (for structuring programmers’ minds); programming languages were nearly a side-effect of that research, and Wirth iterated on programming languages multiple times, which led to a profusion of languages and variants. Pascal was widely studied in academic circles, and others also pursued this type of research, leading to more descendants than Wirth himself could produce.
C on the other hand was designed by Dennis Ritchie, as a tool to develop Unix. It wasn’t a research vehicle, and thus didn’t immediately produce the wealth of variants and descendants that Pascal did. It initially spread with its users, not with papers describing it, at least until The C Programming Language was published (six years after the creation of C).
The programming languages genealogical tree project includes a nice diagram, and a large list of other resources on the topic.
answered yesterday
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
41.5k8170178
9
There's a nice quote about Wirth's intentions behind Pascal included on the Free Pascal Wiki: "Occasionally, it has been claimed that Pascal was designed as a language for teaching. Although this is correct, its use in teaching was not the only goal. In fact, I do not believe in using tools and formalisms in teaching that are inadequate for any practical task.".
– TripeHound
yesterday
6
I think it is much more accurate to say that Algol was the root of these languages, not Pascal. Pascal was largely created to be a better Algol after the debacle of Algol68, and there were a wide variety of other spin-offs that were in widespread use at the time - JOVIAL being an obvious example.
– Maury Markowitz
yesterday
4
@Maury basing the discussion on Algol makes it harder to create an artificial distinction between C and Pascal ;-).
– Stephen Kitt
yesterday
3
@TripeHound the Lindsey paper covers the debacle in detail. To give you an idea, it introduction starts with “The World seems to have a rather negative perception of ALGOL 68. The language has been said to be “too big”, to be defined by an “unreadable Report” produced by a committee which “broke up in disarray”, to have no implementations, and to have no users.” (The paper does try to redeem the language.)
– Stephen Kitt
yesterday
4
Algol68 was widely used as the canonical example of second-system-effect in the 1970s. It was in all the language design books of the era. It added all sorts of huge distributed costs to implement features that no one actually used, yet left many of the original implementation problems from earlier versions unsolved. But all my refs are dead tree, but looking in Google Books you can find many comments as to its sheer size and complexity.
– Maury Markowitz
yesterday
|
show 5 more comments
Short Answer: Yes
Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?
(*1)
Well, it's not as easy as it sounds, as there is no birth certificate with all parents named. Both languages are Algol descendants. And throughout the 1980s Pascal was seen as the way to go - eventually all the way 'til Ada. So yes.
We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C).
Err. No. This falls short of development. To start with, Pascal in its core definition is a very simple language (much more simple than C) intended for teaching classes about basic programming all the way to compiler building. As a result, it was so simplified that serious work was almost impossible - an elegant language for ivory tower games. It lacked strings, usable file I/O and any form of modularisation.
To make it usable for real world application, implementation had to enhance it substantially. And as usual, each and every developer had it his way. A UCSD Pascal program could not be compiled with Pascal/MT+ or Microsoft or Turbo Pascal, as all of them handled things differently.
If at all, then there is a main line promoted by the two most successful products: UCSD Pascal and Turbo Pascal, with the later being an extension of some sort to UCSD Pascal. The huge success of TP did lead to many other moving toward compatible constructs.
Heck, and then there are languages called Pascal which are derived from already different named languages, like Component Pascal evolved out of Oberon, which itself is a much improved Pascal child.
Bottom line, the distinction when it is a 'new' language or not cannot be made by the name.
Turbo Pascal and its incredible wide spread success (even I was tempted to use it) makes a good maker about how much more successful Pascal was in the 80s than C.
Some languages may be descended from both.
There is no 'pure' linage anywhere in the language world. To some degree all Algol based languages can as well be described as Pascal offsprings.
It may even be necessary to look past the syntactic sugar of brackets vs. keywords to realize that Pascal is mainly data driven, as its big step from Algol was the way to define data structures. In so far Ada makes the most 'pure' child of Pascal anyway (*2). Nowadays a feature to be found across basically all general purpose languages.
But let's try a list of close relatives openly carrying the family tradition:
- Pascal
- UCSD Pascal
- Turbo Pascal
- Pascal-SC
- Oberon
- Modula-2
- Component-Pascal
- Delphi
- Concurrent Pascal
- Pascal XL
- Object Pascal
- Pocket Studio
- Vector Pascal (available for the PS2 !)
- MS Pascal
- Compaq Pascal (notable for type casting)
Besides all the variation two lines are notable. One is the Oberon/Modula development driven by Wirth, the other is the Borland Turbo/Delphi line. Each creating their own family of Pascal offspring sharing features. The later creating a linage looking like this:
- (Pascal)
- (UCSD Pascal)
- Turbo Pascal
- Borland Pascal
- Object Pascal
- Delphi
Well, and then there are all the languages with a less clear lineage all the way to JavaScript and Ada.
(I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)
As before, it depends on the way of counting. I'd say Pascal has still an advantage here :))
*1 - It may be noteworthy that Brian Kernighan in contrast offered quite some public (and less than correct) criticism about Pascal.
*2 - All the incompatible Pascal variations where the main reasons for the demand that Ada compilers could only be called that way if they adhere to a strict standard ... which eventually delayed Ada compilers way too long to really inherit the Pascal world, making room for C.
edited yesterday
LangLangC
7111212
answered yesterday
RaffzahnRaffzahn
57.6k6140234
4
IMO Turbo Pascal wasn't a commercial success because of Pascal itself, or the Borland extensions to it, but because of its IDE.
– alephzero
yesterday
Re Kernighan on Pascal: search for "Why Pascal is Not My Favorite Programming Language" and you'll find numerous copies.
– another-dave
yesterday
4
@alephzero "its IDE" sells it short. It was unbelievably fast. It allowed for frequent iteration in the code because of that speed. That was very much tied to the design of the language itself - namely, the fact that a single-pass compiler was trivial, and that you needed only a tiny amount of memory to store the whole thing. This also allowed for other huge features in the IDE - like the integrated debugger that just worked. Pascal had its shortcomings (most notably the lack of strings), but it was also very friendly, with a great community. People loved both Pascal and Turbo Pascal.
– Luaan
yesterday
@alephzero Back then, the low cost was also a factor. It could easily cost several hundred dollars for other development environments that weren't nearly as friendly.
– MetalMikester
11 hours ago
add a comment |
At the time he wrote that, it would have been literally true.
Concurrent Pascal, *Pascal, SUE (which I'd like to know more
about), Modula (not Modula-2), Modula-2, Mesa, Modula-3,
Euclid, Concurrent Euclid, Turing, Turing+, the Gypsy
specification language, LIS (another one I'd like to know
more about), and arguably CLU. Those are just ones I can
call to mind.
answered yesterday
raokraok
31612
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "648"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f10822%2fwas-dennis-ritchie-being-too-modest-in-this-quote-about-c-and-pascal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest?
I’m not sure modesty plays a part here; I don’t see any statement of value attached to the size of a language’s family.
As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?
Yes, he was correct; the main descendants of C by 1993 are listed in the paper:
- Concurrent C
- Objective C
- C*
- C++
Pascal had many more by 1993, including
- the Modula family of languages
- the Oberon family
- Concurrent Pascal
- Object Pascal
- Ada
As you mention yourself, later languages tried to integrate lessons learned from both C-related and Pascal-related languages, and they all derive from Algol anyway. (Pascal itself started off as suggested improvements to Algol X, which weren’t accepted into the language.)
The reason Pascal is at the root of a larger family tree hasn’t been evoked yet.
Pascal was designed by Niklaus Wirth, a researcher whose work focused on studying programming itself, including the use of programming languages as teaching tools and structuring tools (for structuring programmers’ minds); programming languages were nearly a side-effect of that research, and Wirth iterated on programming languages multiple times, which led to a profusion of languages and variants. Pascal was widely studied in academic circles, and others also pursued this type of research, leading to more descendants than Wirth himself could produce.
C on the other hand was designed by Dennis Ritchie, as a tool to develop Unix. It wasn’t a research vehicle, and thus didn’t immediately produce the wealth of variants and descendants that Pascal did. It initially spread with its users, not with papers describing it, at least until The C Programming Language was published (six years after the creation of C).
The programming languages genealogical tree project includes a nice diagram, and a large list of other resources on the topic.
answered yesterday
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
41.5k8170178
9
There's a nice quote about Wirth's intentions behind Pascal included on the Free Pascal Wiki: "Occasionally, it has been claimed that Pascal was designed as a language for teaching. Although this is correct, its use in teaching was not the only goal. In fact, I do not believe in using tools and formalisms in teaching that are inadequate for any practical task.".
– TripeHound
yesterday
6
I think it is much more accurate to say that Algol was the root of these languages, not Pascal. Pascal was largely created to be a better Algol after the debacle of Algol68, and there were a wide variety of other spin-offs that were in widespread use at the time - JOVIAL being an obvious example.
– Maury Markowitz
yesterday
4
@Maury basing the discussion on Algol makes it harder to create an artificial distinction between C and Pascal ;-).
– Stephen Kitt
yesterday
3
@TripeHound the Lindsey paper covers the debacle in detail. To give you an idea, it introduction starts with “The World seems to have a rather negative perception of ALGOL 68. The language has been said to be “too big”, to be defined by an “unreadable Report” produced by a committee which “broke up in disarray”, to have no implementations, and to have no users.” (The paper does try to redeem the language.)
– Stephen Kitt
yesterday
4
Algol68 was widely used as the canonical example of second-system-effect in the 1970s. It was in all the language design books of the era. It added all sorts of huge distributed costs to implement features that no one actually used, yet left many of the original implementation problems from earlier versions unsolved. But all my refs are dead tree, but looking in Google Books you can find many comments as to its sheer size and complexity.
– Maury Markowitz
yesterday
|
show 5 more comments
Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest?
I’m not sure modesty plays a part here; I don’t see any statement of value attached to the size of a language’s family.
As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?
Yes, he was correct; the main descendants of C by 1993 are listed in the paper:
- Concurrent C
- Objective C
- C*
- C++
Pascal had many more by 1993, including
- the Modula family of languages
- the Oberon family
- Concurrent Pascal
- Object Pascal
- Ada
As you mention yourself, later languages tried to integrate lessons learned from both C-related and Pascal-related languages, and they all derive from Algol anyway. (Pascal itself started off as suggested improvements to Algol X, which weren’t accepted into the language.)
The reason Pascal is at the root of a larger family tree hasn’t been evoked yet.
Pascal was designed by Niklaus Wirth, a researcher whose work focused on studying programming itself, including the use of programming languages as teaching tools and structuring tools (for structuring programmers’ minds); programming languages were nearly a side-effect of that research, and Wirth iterated on programming languages multiple times, which led to a profusion of languages and variants. Pascal was widely studied in academic circles, and others also pursued this type of research, leading to more descendants than Wirth himself could produce.
C on the other hand was designed by Dennis Ritchie, as a tool to develop Unix. It wasn’t a research vehicle, and thus didn’t immediately produce the wealth of variants and descendants that Pascal did. It initially spread with its users, not with papers describing it, at least until The C Programming Language was published (six years after the creation of C).
The programming languages genealogical tree project includes a nice diagram, and a large list of other resources on the topic.
answered yesterday
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
41.5k8170178
9
There's a nice quote about Wirth's intentions behind Pascal included on the Free Pascal Wiki: "Occasionally, it has been claimed that Pascal was designed as a language for teaching. Although this is correct, its use in teaching was not the only goal. In fact, I do not believe in using tools and formalisms in teaching that are inadequate for any practical task.".
– TripeHound
yesterday
6
I think it is much more accurate to say that Algol was the root of these languages, not Pascal. Pascal was largely created to be a better Algol after the debacle of Algol68, and there were a wide variety of other spin-offs that were in widespread use at the time - JOVIAL being an obvious example.
– Maury Markowitz
yesterday
4
@Maury basing the discussion on Algol makes it harder to create an artificial distinction between C and Pascal ;-).
– Stephen Kitt
yesterday
3
@TripeHound the Lindsey paper covers the debacle in detail. To give you an idea, it introduction starts with “The World seems to have a rather negative perception of ALGOL 68. The language has been said to be “too big”, to be defined by an “unreadable Report” produced by a committee which “broke up in disarray”, to have no implementations, and to have no users.” (The paper does try to redeem the language.)
– Stephen Kitt
yesterday
4
Algol68 was widely used as the canonical example of second-system-effect in the 1970s. It was in all the language design books of the era. It added all sorts of huge distributed costs to implement features that no one actually used, yet left many of the original implementation problems from earlier versions unsolved. But all my refs are dead tree, but looking in Google Books you can find many comments as to its sheer size and complexity.
– Maury Markowitz
yesterday
|
show 5 more comments
Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest?
I’m not sure modesty plays a part here; I don’t see any statement of value attached to the size of a language’s family.
As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?
Yes, he was correct; the main descendants of C by 1993 are listed in the paper:
- Concurrent C
- Objective C
- C*
- C++
Pascal had many more by 1993, including
- the Modula family of languages
- the Oberon family
- Concurrent Pascal
- Object Pascal
- Ada
As you mention yourself, later languages tried to integrate lessons learned from both C-related and Pascal-related languages, and they all derive from Algol anyway. (Pascal itself started off as suggested improvements to Algol X, which weren’t accepted into the language.)
The reason Pascal is at the root of a larger family tree hasn’t been evoked yet.
Pascal was designed by Niklaus Wirth, a researcher whose work focused on studying programming itself, including the use of programming languages as teaching tools and structuring tools (for structuring programmers’ minds); programming languages were nearly a side-effect of that research, and Wirth iterated on programming languages multiple times, which led to a profusion of languages and variants. Pascal was widely studied in academic circles, and others also pursued this type of research, leading to more descendants than Wirth himself could produce.
C on the other hand was designed by Dennis Ritchie, as a tool to develop Unix. It wasn’t a research vehicle, and thus didn’t immediately produce the wealth of variants and descendants that Pascal did. It initially spread with its users, not with papers describing it, at least until The C Programming Language was published (six years after the creation of C).
The programming languages genealogical tree project includes a nice diagram, and a large list of other resources on the topic.
answered yesterday
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
41.5k8170178
Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest?
I’m not sure modesty plays a part here; I don’t see any statement of value attached to the size of a language’s family.
As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?
Yes, he was correct; the main descendants of C by 1993 are listed in the paper:
- Concurrent C
- Objective C
- C*
- C++
Pascal had many more by 1993, including
- the Modula family of languages
- the Oberon family
- Concurrent Pascal
- Object Pascal
- Ada
As you mention yourself, later languages tried to integrate lessons learned from both C-related and Pascal-related languages, and they all derive from Algol anyway. (Pascal itself started off as suggested improvements to Algol X, which weren’t accepted into the language.)
The reason Pascal is at the root of a larger family tree hasn’t been evoked yet.
Pascal was designed by Niklaus Wirth, a researcher whose work focused on studying programming itself, including the use of programming languages as teaching tools and structuring tools (for structuring programmers’ minds); programming languages were nearly a side-effect of that research, and Wirth iterated on programming languages multiple times, which led to a profusion of languages and variants. Pascal was widely studied in academic circles, and others also pursued this type of research, leading to more descendants than Wirth himself could produce.
C on the other hand was designed by Dennis Ritchie, as a tool to develop Unix. It wasn’t a research vehicle, and thus didn’t immediately produce the wealth of variants and descendants that Pascal did. It initially spread with its users, not with papers describing it, at least until The C Programming Language was published (six years after the creation of C).
The programming languages genealogical tree project includes a nice diagram, and a large list of other resources on the topic.
answered yesterday
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
41.5k8170178
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
41.5k8170178
answered yesterday
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
41.5k8170178
answered yesterday
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
41.5k8170178
41.5k8170178
9
There's a nice quote about Wirth's intentions behind Pascal included on the Free Pascal Wiki: "Occasionally, it has been claimed that Pascal was designed as a language for teaching. Although this is correct, its use in teaching was not the only goal. In fact, I do not believe in using tools and formalisms in teaching that are inadequate for any practical task.".
– TripeHound
yesterday
6
I think it is much more accurate to say that Algol was the root of these languages, not Pascal. Pascal was largely created to be a better Algol after the debacle of Algol68, and there were a wide variety of other spin-offs that were in widespread use at the time - JOVIAL being an obvious example.
– Maury Markowitz
yesterday
4
@Maury basing the discussion on Algol makes it harder to create an artificial distinction between C and Pascal ;-).
– Stephen Kitt
yesterday
3
@TripeHound the Lindsey paper covers the debacle in detail. To give you an idea, it introduction starts with “The World seems to have a rather negative perception of ALGOL 68. The language has been said to be “too big”, to be defined by an “unreadable Report” produced by a committee which “broke up in disarray”, to have no implementations, and to have no users.” (The paper does try to redeem the language.)
– Stephen Kitt
yesterday
4
Algol68 was widely used as the canonical example of second-system-effect in the 1970s. It was in all the language design books of the era. It added all sorts of huge distributed costs to implement features that no one actually used, yet left many of the original implementation problems from earlier versions unsolved. But all my refs are dead tree, but looking in Google Books you can find many comments as to its sheer size and complexity.
– Maury Markowitz
yesterday
|
show 5 more comments
9
There's a nice quote about Wirth's intentions behind Pascal included on the Free Pascal Wiki: "Occasionally, it has been claimed that Pascal was designed as a language for teaching. Although this is correct, its use in teaching was not the only goal. In fact, I do not believe in using tools and formalisms in teaching that are inadequate for any practical task.".
– TripeHound
yesterday
6
I think it is much more accurate to say that Algol was the root of these languages, not Pascal. Pascal was largely created to be a better Algol after the debacle of Algol68, and there were a wide variety of other spin-offs that were in widespread use at the time - JOVIAL being an obvious example.
– Maury Markowitz
yesterday
4
@Maury basing the discussion on Algol makes it harder to create an artificial distinction between C and Pascal ;-).
– Stephen Kitt
yesterday
3
@TripeHound the Lindsey paper covers the debacle in detail. To give you an idea, it introduction starts with “The World seems to have a rather negative perception of ALGOL 68. The language has been said to be “too big”, to be defined by an “unreadable Report” produced by a committee which “broke up in disarray”, to have no implementations, and to have no users.” (The paper does try to redeem the language.)
– Stephen Kitt
yesterday
4
Algol68 was widely used as the canonical example of second-system-effect in the 1970s. It was in all the language design books of the era. It added all sorts of huge distributed costs to implement features that no one actually used, yet left many of the original implementation problems from earlier versions unsolved. But all my refs are dead tree, but looking in Google Books you can find many comments as to its sheer size and complexity.
– Maury Markowitz
yesterday
9
9
There's a nice quote about Wirth's intentions behind Pascal included on the Free Pascal Wiki: "Occasionally, it has been claimed that Pascal was designed as a language for teaching. Although this is correct, its use in teaching was not the only goal. In fact, I do not believe in using tools and formalisms in teaching that are inadequate for any practical task.".
– TripeHound
yesterday
There's a nice quote about Wirth's intentions behind Pascal included on the Free Pascal Wiki: "Occasionally, it has been claimed that Pascal was designed as a language for teaching. Although this is correct, its use in teaching was not the only goal. In fact, I do not believe in using tools and formalisms in teaching that are inadequate for any practical task.".
– TripeHound
yesterday
6
6
I think it is much more accurate to say that Algol was the root of these languages, not Pascal. Pascal was largely created to be a better Algol after the debacle of Algol68, and there were a wide variety of other spin-offs that were in widespread use at the time - JOVIAL being an obvious example.
– Maury Markowitz
yesterday
I think it is much more accurate to say that Algol was the root of these languages, not Pascal. Pascal was largely created to be a better Algol after the debacle of Algol68, and there were a wide variety of other spin-offs that were in widespread use at the time - JOVIAL being an obvious example.
– Maury Markowitz
yesterday
4
4
@Maury basing the discussion on Algol makes it harder to create an artificial distinction between C and Pascal ;-).
– Stephen Kitt
yesterday
@Maury basing the discussion on Algol makes it harder to create an artificial distinction between C and Pascal ;-).
– Stephen Kitt
yesterday
3
3
@TripeHound the Lindsey paper covers the debacle in detail. To give you an idea, it introduction starts with “The World seems to have a rather negative perception of ALGOL 68. The language has been said to be “too big”, to be defined by an “unreadable Report” produced by a committee which “broke up in disarray”, to have no implementations, and to have no users.” (The paper does try to redeem the language.)
– Stephen Kitt
yesterday
@TripeHound the Lindsey paper covers the debacle in detail. To give you an idea, it introduction starts with “The World seems to have a rather negative perception of ALGOL 68. The language has been said to be “too big”, to be defined by an “unreadable Report” produced by a committee which “broke up in disarray”, to have no implementations, and to have no users.” (The paper does try to redeem the language.)
– Stephen Kitt
yesterday
4
4
Algol68 was widely used as the canonical example of second-system-effect in the 1970s. It was in all the language design books of the era. It added all sorts of huge distributed costs to implement features that no one actually used, yet left many of the original implementation problems from earlier versions unsolved. But all my refs are dead tree, but looking in Google Books you can find many comments as to its sheer size and complexity.
– Maury Markowitz
yesterday
Algol68 was widely used as the canonical example of second-system-effect in the 1970s. It was in all the language design books of the era. It added all sorts of huge distributed costs to implement features that no one actually used, yet left many of the original implementation problems from earlier versions unsolved. But all my refs are dead tree, but looking in Google Books you can find many comments as to its sheer size and complexity.
– Maury Markowitz
yesterday
|
show 5 more comments
Short Answer: Yes
Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?
(*1)
Well, it's not as easy as it sounds, as there is no birth certificate with all parents named. Both languages are Algol descendants. And throughout the 1980s Pascal was seen as the way to go - eventually all the way 'til Ada. So yes.
We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C).
Err. No. This falls short of development. To start with, Pascal in its core definition is a very simple language (much more simple than C) intended for teaching classes about basic programming all the way to compiler building. As a result, it was so simplified that serious work was almost impossible - an elegant language for ivory tower games. It lacked strings, usable file I/O and any form of modularisation.
To make it usable for real world application, implementation had to enhance it substantially. And as usual, each and every developer had it his way. A UCSD Pascal program could not be compiled with Pascal/MT+ or Microsoft or Turbo Pascal, as all of them handled things differently.
If at all, then there is a main line promoted by the two most successful products: UCSD Pascal and Turbo Pascal, with the later being an extension of some sort to UCSD Pascal. The huge success of TP did lead to many other moving toward compatible constructs.
Heck, and then there are languages called Pascal which are derived from already different named languages, like Component Pascal evolved out of Oberon, which itself is a much improved Pascal child.
Bottom line, the distinction when it is a 'new' language or not cannot be made by the name.
Turbo Pascal and its incredible wide spread success (even I was tempted to use it) makes a good maker about how much more successful Pascal was in the 80s than C.
Some languages may be descended from both.
There is no 'pure' linage anywhere in the language world. To some degree all Algol based languages can as well be described as Pascal offsprings.
It may even be necessary to look past the syntactic sugar of brackets vs. keywords to realize that Pascal is mainly data driven, as its big step from Algol was the way to define data structures. In so far Ada makes the most 'pure' child of Pascal anyway (*2). Nowadays a feature to be found across basically all general purpose languages.
But let's try a list of close relatives openly carrying the family tradition:
- Pascal
- UCSD Pascal
- Turbo Pascal
- Pascal-SC
- Oberon
- Modula-2
- Component-Pascal
- Delphi
- Concurrent Pascal
- Pascal XL
- Object Pascal
- Pocket Studio
- Vector Pascal (available for the PS2 !)
- MS Pascal
- Compaq Pascal (notable for type casting)
Besides all the variation two lines are notable. One is the Oberon/Modula development driven by Wirth, the other is the Borland Turbo/Delphi line. Each creating their own family of Pascal offspring sharing features. The later creating a linage looking like this:
- (Pascal)
- (UCSD Pascal)
- Turbo Pascal
- Borland Pascal
- Object Pascal
- Delphi
Well, and then there are all the languages with a less clear lineage all the way to JavaScript and Ada.
(I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)
As before, it depends on the way of counting. I'd say Pascal has still an advantage here :))
*1 - It may be noteworthy that Brian Kernighan in contrast offered quite some public (and less than correct) criticism about Pascal.
*2 - All the incompatible Pascal variations where the main reasons for the demand that Ada compilers could only be called that way if they adhere to a strict standard ... which eventually delayed Ada compilers way too long to really inherit the Pascal world, making room for C.
edited yesterday
LangLangC
7111212
answered yesterday
RaffzahnRaffzahn
57.6k6140234
4
IMO Turbo Pascal wasn't a commercial success because of Pascal itself, or the Borland extensions to it, but because of its IDE.
– alephzero
yesterday
Re Kernighan on Pascal: search for "Why Pascal is Not My Favorite Programming Language" and you'll find numerous copies.
– another-dave
yesterday
4
@alephzero "its IDE" sells it short. It was unbelievably fast. It allowed for frequent iteration in the code because of that speed. That was very much tied to the design of the language itself - namely, the fact that a single-pass compiler was trivial, and that you needed only a tiny amount of memory to store the whole thing. This also allowed for other huge features in the IDE - like the integrated debugger that just worked. Pascal had its shortcomings (most notably the lack of strings), but it was also very friendly, with a great community. People loved both Pascal and Turbo Pascal.
– Luaan
yesterday
@alephzero Back then, the low cost was also a factor. It could easily cost several hundred dollars for other development environments that weren't nearly as friendly.
– MetalMikester
11 hours ago
add a comment |
Short Answer: Yes
Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?
(*1)
Well, it's not as easy as it sounds, as there is no birth certificate with all parents named. Both languages are Algol descendants. And throughout the 1980s Pascal was seen as the way to go - eventually all the way 'til Ada. So yes.
We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C).
Err. No. This falls short of development. To start with, Pascal in its core definition is a very simple language (much more simple than C) intended for teaching classes about basic programming all the way to compiler building. As a result, it was so simplified that serious work was almost impossible - an elegant language for ivory tower games. It lacked strings, usable file I/O and any form of modularisation.
To make it usable for real world application, implementation had to enhance it substantially. And as usual, each and every developer had it his way. A UCSD Pascal program could not be compiled with Pascal/MT+ or Microsoft or Turbo Pascal, as all of them handled things differently.
If at all, then there is a main line promoted by the two most successful products: UCSD Pascal and Turbo Pascal, with the later being an extension of some sort to UCSD Pascal. The huge success of TP did lead to many other moving toward compatible constructs.
Heck, and then there are languages called Pascal which are derived from already different named languages, like Component Pascal evolved out of Oberon, which itself is a much improved Pascal child.
Bottom line, the distinction when it is a 'new' language or not cannot be made by the name.
Turbo Pascal and its incredible wide spread success (even I was tempted to use it) makes a good maker about how much more successful Pascal was in the 80s than C.
Some languages may be descended from both.
There is no 'pure' linage anywhere in the language world. To some degree all Algol based languages can as well be described as Pascal offsprings.
It may even be necessary to look past the syntactic sugar of brackets vs. keywords to realize that Pascal is mainly data driven, as its big step from Algol was the way to define data structures. In so far Ada makes the most 'pure' child of Pascal anyway (*2). Nowadays a feature to be found across basically all general purpose languages.
But let's try a list of close relatives openly carrying the family tradition:
- Pascal
- UCSD Pascal
- Turbo Pascal
- Pascal-SC
- Oberon
- Modula-2
- Component-Pascal
- Delphi
- Concurrent Pascal
- Pascal XL
- Object Pascal
- Pocket Studio
- Vector Pascal (available for the PS2 !)
- MS Pascal
- Compaq Pascal (notable for type casting)
Besides all the variation two lines are notable. One is the Oberon/Modula development driven by Wirth, the other is the Borland Turbo/Delphi line. Each creating their own family of Pascal offspring sharing features. The later creating a linage looking like this:
- (Pascal)
- (UCSD Pascal)
- Turbo Pascal
- Borland Pascal
- Object Pascal
- Delphi
Well, and then there are all the languages with a less clear lineage all the way to JavaScript and Ada.
(I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)
As before, it depends on the way of counting. I'd say Pascal has still an advantage here :))
*1 - It may be noteworthy that Brian Kernighan in contrast offered quite some public (and less than correct) criticism about Pascal.
*2 - All the incompatible Pascal variations where the main reasons for the demand that Ada compilers could only be called that way if they adhere to a strict standard ... which eventually delayed Ada compilers way too long to really inherit the Pascal world, making room for C.
edited yesterday
LangLangC
7111212
answered yesterday
RaffzahnRaffzahn
57.6k6140234
4
IMO Turbo Pascal wasn't a commercial success because of Pascal itself, or the Borland extensions to it, but because of its IDE.
– alephzero
yesterday
Re Kernighan on Pascal: search for "Why Pascal is Not My Favorite Programming Language" and you'll find numerous copies.
– another-dave
yesterday
4
@alephzero "its IDE" sells it short. It was unbelievably fast. It allowed for frequent iteration in the code because of that speed. That was very much tied to the design of the language itself - namely, the fact that a single-pass compiler was trivial, and that you needed only a tiny amount of memory to store the whole thing. This also allowed for other huge features in the IDE - like the integrated debugger that just worked. Pascal had its shortcomings (most notably the lack of strings), but it was also very friendly, with a great community. People loved both Pascal and Turbo Pascal.
– Luaan
yesterday
@alephzero Back then, the low cost was also a factor. It could easily cost several hundred dollars for other development environments that weren't nearly as friendly.
– MetalMikester
11 hours ago
add a comment |
Short Answer: Yes
Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?
(*1)
Well, it's not as easy as it sounds, as there is no birth certificate with all parents named. Both languages are Algol descendants. And throughout the 1980s Pascal was seen as the way to go - eventually all the way 'til Ada. So yes.
We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C).
Err. No. This falls short of development. To start with, Pascal in its core definition is a very simple language (much more simple than C) intended for teaching classes about basic programming all the way to compiler building. As a result, it was so simplified that serious work was almost impossible - an elegant language for ivory tower games. It lacked strings, usable file I/O and any form of modularisation.
To make it usable for real world application, implementation had to enhance it substantially. And as usual, each and every developer had it his way. A UCSD Pascal program could not be compiled with Pascal/MT+ or Microsoft or Turbo Pascal, as all of them handled things differently.
If at all, then there is a main line promoted by the two most successful products: UCSD Pascal and Turbo Pascal, with the later being an extension of some sort to UCSD Pascal. The huge success of TP did lead to many other moving toward compatible constructs.
Heck, and then there are languages called Pascal which are derived from already different named languages, like Component Pascal evolved out of Oberon, which itself is a much improved Pascal child.
Bottom line, the distinction when it is a 'new' language or not cannot be made by the name.
Turbo Pascal and its incredible wide spread success (even I was tempted to use it) makes a good maker about how much more successful Pascal was in the 80s than C.
Some languages may be descended from both.
There is no 'pure' linage anywhere in the language world. To some degree all Algol based languages can as well be described as Pascal offsprings.
It may even be necessary to look past the syntactic sugar of brackets vs. keywords to realize that Pascal is mainly data driven, as its big step from Algol was the way to define data structures. In so far Ada makes the most 'pure' child of Pascal anyway (*2). Nowadays a feature to be found across basically all general purpose languages.
But let's try a list of close relatives openly carrying the family tradition:
- Pascal
- UCSD Pascal
- Turbo Pascal
- Pascal-SC
- Oberon
- Modula-2
- Component-Pascal
- Delphi
- Concurrent Pascal
- Pascal XL
- Object Pascal
- Pocket Studio
- Vector Pascal (available for the PS2 !)
- MS Pascal
- Compaq Pascal (notable for type casting)
Besides all the variation two lines are notable. One is the Oberon/Modula development driven by Wirth, the other is the Borland Turbo/Delphi line. Each creating their own family of Pascal offspring sharing features. The later creating a linage looking like this:
- (Pascal)
- (UCSD Pascal)
- Turbo Pascal
- Borland Pascal
- Object Pascal
- Delphi
Well, and then there are all the languages with a less clear lineage all the way to JavaScript and Ada.
(I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)
As before, it depends on the way of counting. I'd say Pascal has still an advantage here :))
*1 - It may be noteworthy that Brian Kernighan in contrast offered quite some public (and less than correct) criticism about Pascal.
*2 - All the incompatible Pascal variations where the main reasons for the demand that Ada compilers could only be called that way if they adhere to a strict standard ... which eventually delayed Ada compilers way too long to really inherit the Pascal world, making room for C.
edited yesterday
LangLangC
7111212
answered yesterday
RaffzahnRaffzahn
57.6k6140234
Short Answer: Yes
Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?
(*1)
Well, it's not as easy as it sounds, as there is no birth certificate with all parents named. Both languages are Algol descendants. And throughout the 1980s Pascal was seen as the way to go - eventually all the way 'til Ada. So yes.
We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C).
Err. No. This falls short of development. To start with, Pascal in its core definition is a very simple language (much more simple than C) intended for teaching classes about basic programming all the way to compiler building. As a result, it was so simplified that serious work was almost impossible - an elegant language for ivory tower games. It lacked strings, usable file I/O and any form of modularisation.
To make it usable for real world application, implementation had to enhance it substantially. And as usual, each and every developer had it his way. A UCSD Pascal program could not be compiled with Pascal/MT+ or Microsoft or Turbo Pascal, as all of them handled things differently.
If at all, then there is a main line promoted by the two most successful products: UCSD Pascal and Turbo Pascal, with the later being an extension of some sort to UCSD Pascal. The huge success of TP did lead to many other moving toward compatible constructs.
Heck, and then there are languages called Pascal which are derived from already different named languages, like Component Pascal evolved out of Oberon, which itself is a much improved Pascal child.
Bottom line, the distinction when it is a 'new' language or not cannot be made by the name.
Turbo Pascal and its incredible wide spread success (even I was tempted to use it) makes a good maker about how much more successful Pascal was in the 80s than C.
Some languages may be descended from both.
There is no 'pure' linage anywhere in the language world. To some degree all Algol based languages can as well be described as Pascal offsprings.
It may even be necessary to look past the syntactic sugar of brackets vs. keywords to realize that Pascal is mainly data driven, as its big step from Algol was the way to define data structures. In so far Ada makes the most 'pure' child of Pascal anyway (*2). Nowadays a feature to be found across basically all general purpose languages.
But let's try a list of close relatives openly carrying the family tradition:
- Pascal
- UCSD Pascal
- Turbo Pascal
- Pascal-SC
- Oberon
- Modula-2
- Component-Pascal
- Delphi
- Concurrent Pascal
- Pascal XL
- Object Pascal
- Pocket Studio
- Vector Pascal (available for the PS2 !)
- MS Pascal
- Compaq Pascal (notable for type casting)
Besides all the variation two lines are notable. One is the Oberon/Modula development driven by Wirth, the other is the Borland Turbo/Delphi line. Each creating their own family of Pascal offspring sharing features. The later creating a linage looking like this:
- (Pascal)
- (UCSD Pascal)
- Turbo Pascal
- Borland Pascal
- Object Pascal
- Delphi
Well, and then there are all the languages with a less clear lineage all the way to JavaScript and Ada.
(I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)
As before, it depends on the way of counting. I'd say Pascal has still an advantage here :))
*1 - It may be noteworthy that Brian Kernighan in contrast offered quite some public (and less than correct) criticism about Pascal.
*2 - All the incompatible Pascal variations where the main reasons for the demand that Ada compilers could only be called that way if they adhere to a strict standard ... which eventually delayed Ada compilers way too long to really inherit the Pascal world, making room for C.
edited yesterday
LangLangC
7111212
answered yesterday
RaffzahnRaffzahn
57.6k6140234
edited yesterday
LangLangC
7111212
edited yesterday
LangLangC
7111212
edited yesterday
LangLangC
7111212
7111212
answered yesterday
RaffzahnRaffzahn
57.6k6140234
answered yesterday
RaffzahnRaffzahn
57.6k6140234
answered yesterday
RaffzahnRaffzahn
57.6k6140234
57.6k6140234
4
IMO Turbo Pascal wasn't a commercial success because of Pascal itself, or the Borland extensions to it, but because of its IDE.
– alephzero
yesterday
Re Kernighan on Pascal: search for "Why Pascal is Not My Favorite Programming Language" and you'll find numerous copies.
– another-dave
yesterday
4
@alephzero "its IDE" sells it short. It was unbelievably fast. It allowed for frequent iteration in the code because of that speed. That was very much tied to the design of the language itself - namely, the fact that a single-pass compiler was trivial, and that you needed only a tiny amount of memory to store the whole thing. This also allowed for other huge features in the IDE - like the integrated debugger that just worked. Pascal had its shortcomings (most notably the lack of strings), but it was also very friendly, with a great community. People loved both Pascal and Turbo Pascal.
– Luaan
yesterday
@alephzero Back then, the low cost was also a factor. It could easily cost several hundred dollars for other development environments that weren't nearly as friendly.
– MetalMikester
11 hours ago
add a comment |
4
IMO Turbo Pascal wasn't a commercial success because of Pascal itself, or the Borland extensions to it, but because of its IDE.
– alephzero
yesterday
Re Kernighan on Pascal: search for "Why Pascal is Not My Favorite Programming Language" and you'll find numerous copies.
– another-dave
yesterday
4
@alephzero "its IDE" sells it short. It was unbelievably fast. It allowed for frequent iteration in the code because of that speed. That was very much tied to the design of the language itself - namely, the fact that a single-pass compiler was trivial, and that you needed only a tiny amount of memory to store the whole thing. This also allowed for other huge features in the IDE - like the integrated debugger that just worked. Pascal had its shortcomings (most notably the lack of strings), but it was also very friendly, with a great community. People loved both Pascal and Turbo Pascal.
– Luaan
yesterday
@alephzero Back then, the low cost was also a factor. It could easily cost several hundred dollars for other development environments that weren't nearly as friendly.
– MetalMikester
11 hours ago
4
4
IMO Turbo Pascal wasn't a commercial success because of Pascal itself, or the Borland extensions to it, but because of its IDE.
– alephzero
yesterday
IMO Turbo Pascal wasn't a commercial success because of Pascal itself, or the Borland extensions to it, but because of its IDE.
– alephzero
yesterday
Re Kernighan on Pascal: search for "Why Pascal is Not My Favorite Programming Language" and you'll find numerous copies.
– another-dave
yesterday
Re Kernighan on Pascal: search for "Why Pascal is Not My Favorite Programming Language" and you'll find numerous copies.
– another-dave
yesterday
4
4
@alephzero "its IDE" sells it short. It was unbelievably fast. It allowed for frequent iteration in the code because of that speed. That was very much tied to the design of the language itself - namely, the fact that a single-pass compiler was trivial, and that you needed only a tiny amount of memory to store the whole thing. This also allowed for other huge features in the IDE - like the integrated debugger that just worked. Pascal had its shortcomings (most notably the lack of strings), but it was also very friendly, with a great community. People loved both Pascal and Turbo Pascal.
– Luaan
yesterday
@alephzero "its IDE" sells it short. It was unbelievably fast. It allowed for frequent iteration in the code because of that speed. That was very much tied to the design of the language itself - namely, the fact that a single-pass compiler was trivial, and that you needed only a tiny amount of memory to store the whole thing. This also allowed for other huge features in the IDE - like the integrated debugger that just worked. Pascal had its shortcomings (most notably the lack of strings), but it was also very friendly, with a great community. People loved both Pascal and Turbo Pascal.
– Luaan
yesterday
@alephzero Back then, the low cost was also a factor. It could easily cost several hundred dollars for other development environments that weren't nearly as friendly.
– MetalMikester
11 hours ago
@alephzero Back then, the low cost was also a factor. It could easily cost several hundred dollars for other development environments that weren't nearly as friendly.
– MetalMikester
11 hours ago
add a comment |
At the time he wrote that, it would have been literally true.
Concurrent Pascal, *Pascal, SUE (which I'd like to know more
about), Modula (not Modula-2), Modula-2, Mesa, Modula-3,
Euclid, Concurrent Euclid, Turing, Turing+, the Gypsy
specification language, LIS (another one I'd like to know
more about), and arguably CLU. Those are just ones I can
call to mind.
answered yesterday
raokraok
31612
add a comment |
At the time he wrote that, it would have been literally true.
Concurrent Pascal, *Pascal, SUE (which I'd like to know more
about), Modula (not Modula-2), Modula-2, Mesa, Modula-3,
Euclid, Concurrent Euclid, Turing, Turing+, the Gypsy
specification language, LIS (another one I'd like to know
more about), and arguably CLU. Those are just ones I can
call to mind.
answered yesterday
raokraok
31612
add a comment |
At the time he wrote that, it would have been literally true.
Concurrent Pascal, *Pascal, SUE (which I'd like to know more
about), Modula (not Modula-2), Modula-2, Mesa, Modula-3,
Euclid, Concurrent Euclid, Turing, Turing+, the Gypsy
specification language, LIS (another one I'd like to know
more about), and arguably CLU. Those are just ones I can
call to mind.
answered yesterday
raokraok
31612
At the time he wrote that, it would have been literally true.
Concurrent Pascal, *Pascal, SUE (which I'd like to know more
about), Modula (not Modula-2), Modula-2, Mesa, Modula-3,
Euclid, Concurrent Euclid, Turing, Turing+, the Gypsy
specification language, LIS (another one I'd like to know
more about), and arguably CLU. Those are just ones I can
call to mind.
answered yesterday
raokraok
31612
answered yesterday
raokraok
31612
answered yesterday
raokraok
31612
answered yesterday
raokraok
31612
31612
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f10822%2fwas-dennis-ritchie-being-too-modest-in-this-quote-about-c-and-pascal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
15
It's difficult to say without knowing the context, but given Ritchie's opinion about Pascal, I'd interpret "they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny" as a tongue-in-cheek criticism along the lines of "Pascal was so bad it needed lots of successors to at least get a few things right". If this reading is correct, being "too modest" isn't what this is about...
– dirkt
yesterday
Aren't some features of C itself derived from Pascal? So if you're taking this definition in the loosest sense, all descendants of C are also descendants of Pascal, (if not direct descendants) so Pascal would obviously have to have more.
– Darrel Hoffman
yesterday
1
@Darrel Pascal and C are contemporaneous; features of C which look like Pascal are more likely to come from Algol (which both C and Pascal derive from).
– Stephen Kitt
12 hours ago