🚀 go-pugleaf

	C is *much* harder to learn than Pascal.  Beginners usually get into
a lot of trouble with pointers and end up crashing the machine more often than
not.  Many of these people then shrug it off because they don't think C
disciplined enough.  On the other side of the coni, many programmers do not
like pascal because it is too wordy and restricted.  In my experience,
however, the better the programmer, the more prone to C he becomes.  The
semantic structure of C more closely resembles the capabilities of modern
microprocessors (read: 80x86, 680x0, uVAX-II), at least when compared to 
Pascal.  This means the compiler can usually optimize the code to the point 
where hand written assembly wouldn't go much faster.

	C was originally designed for systems programmers by systems 
programmers... designed to be fast and efficient.  UNIX is written almost 
entirely in C with only a few hundred lines of assembly.  Many microcomputer
operating systems are also written in C and assembly now, rather than just
assembly.  I have no idea why Apple chose Pascal, but it was probably due to
programming trends within Apple at the time.

	As far as style goes:  I've seen bad programmers with bad style,
bad programmers with good style, good programmers with awful style, and great
programmers with great style.  This makes it somewhat more difficult to get
a team together to do something, but assuming you can pull it off, or work
alone, the results are usually much better, and are accomplished much faster
than with Pascal.

	Please note that this admittedly biased and one-sided comparison is
between C and Pascal ONLY.  I am not taking into account any other language,
many of which are better than both C and Pascal in organization, efficiency,
and power.

					-Matt