Olin Lathrop wrote:

> Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>> What would be your suggestion as to what's better? And don't say
>> "Pascal", because we all agree that "the" Pascal is not usable. So
>> you need to specify exactly which Pascal... and here the trouble
>> starts. There is not a usable Pascal... there was Turbo Pascal,
>> there is Delphi, there is Apollo Pascal, there is this and that
>> Pascal -- not a good starting point to argue for adoption of
>> "Pascal".
> 
> I used Pascal only as a example because it does have a lot of the
> constructs designed better than their C equivalents and I happen to
> be familiar with it.  What I'd like to see is vendors innovating.  We
> haven't seen real innovation in reaonably available commercial
> languages for some time.  Most of your argument is that we're stuck
> with C because there is no viable alternative, which is true but not
> the point. 

Most of my argument is not /that/ we are stuck, but /why/. 

> The question is how to get out of this rut.  It will never happen
> without large numbers of programmers complaining loudly about being
> forced to use C whenever that occurs. 

The /why/ we're stuck is IMO the point to start when trying to answer
the question about how to get out of it. And IMO standardization is the
single most important issue; it's required for having an alternative,
and complaining without alternative is usually not going very far.

Contrary to what you seem to think, it is my experience that the
shortcomings of assembly, C and C++ are widely known in the assembly, C
and C++ programmer community. They choose assembly, C or C++ not because
but despite their shortcomings, typically in a typical engineering-type
decision making and weighing of pros and cons.

FWIW, I held on to Turbo Pascal as long as I could. But it just died
away under my hands... :)

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