Tamas Rudnai wrote:

>> So it seems there was a start, long ago, so it's not the lack of seeds.
>> What happened? Why did Apple abandon Pascal?
> 
> I have no clue, maybe it is easier to get C programmers nowadays + the
> because of the increased computing speed and cheap storage the faster
> and smaller pascal calling convention is not that important anymore?
> 10-15 years ago it was so 'cool' to say 'real programmer is not
> programming in Pascal'. I think that was one of the reason Borland calls
> Object Pascal as Delphi.

I don't know about this... Turbo Pascal had an /extremely/ good name in its
day, much better than any C environment at the time. IIRC, after Turbo
Pascal came out, programming in Pascal was downright "hot" (and "cool" at
the same time :)
_________________________________

Olin wrote:
> I think C mostly gained the popularity it did because it tagged along
> with Unix. 

How does this explain its popularity with the 8-bit micros? That was
generally an area that wasn't heavily influenced by Unix, I think.

> I also think there are way too many programmers out there are lazy or
> immature and think C is easier because it doesn't impose any discipline
> on them.  

I haven't met any who would think like this; IME C is not more a target for
lazy programmers than anything else. FWIW, just like assembly (but to a
lesser degree), programming decently in C requires more discipline than
"higher" level languages.

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist