Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ll-xn!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!uw-june!pardo From: pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Pascal vs. Algol (Was: Algol 60 vs Algol 68 (was "stack machines (Burroughs)")) Message-ID: <5195@june.cs.washington.edu> Date: 29 Jun 88 00:42:27 GMT References: <1521@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <1532@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <476@pcrat.UUCP> <130@quintus.UUCP> <961@gethen.UUCP> Reply-To: pardo@uw-june.UUCP (David Keppel) Organization: U of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle Lines: 21 In article <961@gethen.UUCP> isaac@gethen.UUCP (Isaac Rabinovitch) writes: >The main reason Pascal is so popular today is the same reason BASIC is: >micro programmers were hungry for high-level (relatively) languages, and >vendors addressed the marketplace by adapting teaching tools. I would claim different: that the reasons that PASCAL are (was) so popular include: + Simplicity: can be implemented reliablly. + Simplicity: can be understood effectively. + Quality: The language had years of thinking in it before it came into an implementation. + Straightforward: A compiler can do little optimization and produce good code. + Defintion: There is a good standard to adhere to. I think that these reasons (and others) are responsible for the vendors' choice of Pascal over Xyz. I'm not claiming that there aren't problems with Pascal, there are many. As Issac (or somebody) pointed out, Wirth designed it as an EDUCATIONAL language; it is an accident of its careful design that it became so popular. ;-D on ( C++ is the Fortran of the 90's ) Pardo