🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C003EI.H3u@news.udel.edu>, bew@brahms.udel.edu (Ben Williams) writes:
> In article <1992Dec24.230420.4243@sequent.com> furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod) writes (among other things in an excellant article):
> 
> ;                                         PASCAL was designed solely
> ; for the purpose of teaching structured programming as espoused by
> ; Tom DeMarco, Richard West, et al. C was written in 1969 for the
> ; express purpose of providing a general purpose Operating Systems
> ; language that was portable, (spelled UNIX).

>   Yes, isn't it interesting that two of the most popular general purpose
> languages for writing applications software were not designed to be used to
> write application software. ...

I'm afraid that the original statement about C is wrong, and the followup
at least partly so.  I can go digging up quotes out of the July-August '78
BSTJ if you insist, but C was written `so that the author and his colleagues
would not have to program in assembler' and the portability of the operating
system was an un-looked-for benefit.  And ``it suffices to say that UNIX
offers many interesting programs, from compiler-compilers to equation
typesetters, that would not exist had their authors had to program in
assembler.''  (From memory, so it's probably a slight misquote.)

Pascal was designed for teaching; for reasons which I've belabored often
enough, it's not really suitable for that either.
-- 
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end				Mark Terribile

 mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ