Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> > Turbo Pascal was very popular. At some point, it probably was the
> > most popular development environment on CP/M and MS-DOS. I think
> > the main reason why it didn't "take over" like C was the lack of
> > standardization and the proliferation of dialects.
> 
> Neither of those reasons make sense. Turbo Pascal was a single language
> that was well defined. There were no dialects.

That's the wrong argument to make. Turbo Pascal was only ever available
on two architectures: Z80 and x86 -- and, AFAIK, these weren't strictly
compatible with each other. If you wanted Pascal on any other platform,
you had to switch to a different vendor's dialect.

> I think the reasons C eventually dominated were because there were
> several free or low cost C compilers out there for a wide range of
> systems, it tagged along with the rise of Unix, and there were (even
> more than today) a large group of programmers lacking the maturity,
> discipline, and experience to see the advantages of a tightly typed
> language like Pascal.

There is also a body of "mature, disciplined and experienced" programmers
who see the limitations of a straightjacket language like Pascal. They get
an awful lot of useful programming done in other languages, including C.

> "Hacker" meant a different thing back then and was sortof a honorary
> title. Unfortunately it also included connotations of writing what we
> now call bad code, flagrant misuse of data typing, and using all manner
> of cutesy tricks that were a side effect of the language syntax. It was
> actually cool to write tiny maximally obfuscated programs. C is the
> perfect language for this, and I think this had some influece over the
> rise of C.

I seriously doubt that. Where's your objective evidence?

Sure, C programmers like to divert themselves with activities like the
"obfuscated C contest", but that hardly applies to the use of the language
in real applications.

> Eventually C got past the critical mass stage where you had to use it.
> I think we all agree that's where we are today. All my point is that
> while we may be forced to use C today, we should complain about it
> whenever possible. Changing the world won't be easy or quick, but it
> can't happen until we start to try.

The point that everyone has been making to you, Olin, is that no one is
forced to use C, not on any platform -- there's always an alternative
available.*

But the bigger point for you is that you need to do a better job of picking
your battles. Complaining to us here on the PIClist every time someone
*else* mentions C is not at all productive in the sense that you want, and
is completely counterproductive to everyone else who ends up participating
in the discussion -- and mildly counterproductive to all other readers who
have to skip over it. Annoying everyone here in this way does not help your
cause.

-- Dave Tweed

* Trivially true, of course, because you can always drop into assembly
  language.** Or get a different job.

** Except ... I have yet to find an easy way to write a nontrivial program
  in assembly for the PIC32. Microchip *really* wants you to program these
  chips in C!
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist