Wirth...

[Dick Dunn]

> ... Tell me some
> good things about Pascal. I happen to think it is pathetic. Let's see, first
> there was Pascal, then Modula-1, then Modula-2. Looks like it took Wirth three
> tries to get it right (if in fact he did). The claim that "It was designed as a
> teaching language" doesn't cut it with me. It's a toy. If I were Blaise I'd be
> rolling over in my grave. 

[My turn to return a zing at a DeadHead...oh well...]
As long as we're doing history, let's be careful about it...Pascal wasn't
"first" for Wirth.  There was PL/360, which was designed as a decent
alternative to assembly language for the IBM 360--not bad, for its time.
There was Euler (a much earlier "name it after someone" language) which was
an experiment with some new concepts.  Pascal WAS designed as a teaching
language, like it or not.  It's useful for writing certain classes of
programs, and it's a DAMNED GOOD language for teaching--I know; I've used
it for just that.  Pascal has a lot of characteristics which make it
interesting for constructing serious software.  It also has a handful of
serious drawbacks.  These could not be solved without bad boogie on
compatibility.  Wirth had also learned a bunch about languages,
particularly for systems and low-level use.  So we get Modula.  Modula 1
was an oops; Modula 2 is at a somewhat lower level than Pascal but is
otherwise basically a cleaned-up Pascal.  It's not three (or five) tries to
get it right--it's 3 or 5 different languages with different goals and
different results.  The guy's a language designer.  Look--Pascal came in
around 1970 and had the serious smell of CDC 6x00 batch about it.  Modula 2
came in around 1977 and had a lot of feel of PDP-11 and RT-11 about it.
Someone has said that language designers turn out a new language every
seven years.  We're about due--any guesses about what will come from Wirth
next?
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
   ...Cerebus for dictator!