> And I don't when I can help it.  Of course that is orthogonal the argument
that C is a very badly designed language.

Times were different when Algol and Pascal were invented too, so that's no
excuse.
/>

Pascal about 1968-1970.
C About 1970 -1972.
C arguably related to BCP
Pascal as a teaching language.
C as a tool to assist development of the PDP11.

C has many many sharp edges. It does many things "badly".
C is famed for it's ability to obfuscate its code - & to do things a zillion
different ways. Pascal wraps you in cotton wool. Type enforcement on C is
essentially unknown. Lint and friends add protection and checking that the
language could but doesn't. What a compiler might do now and what could be
expected 'back then' (almost 40 years ago !!!) differ somewhat.

C is rough and brutal and assumes that you know what you are doing and do
what you are knowing. Pascal attempts to only allow you to do valid and
non-dangerous things. (Assembler allows you do do almost anything - any
argument that applies to a C defect usually applies to assembler as well
where the two can be compared).

Both languages are annoying in the wrong hands - C because it allows users
to do fatal things easily, Pascal because it makes it harder for experts to
do some things well easily - or sloppily easily. Pascal leans towards nanny
state and C towards libertine excess.

Both languages are "bad" given the appropriate assumption set. For sensible
everyday use it's harder to find an assumption set that makes C good :-).
But it has its place, preferably in suitably expert hands.


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