4 ms·

Most of those languages are as close to dead and buried as can be, except maybe on an academic's or aging hobbyist's bookshelf, or perhaps running on a ghost ma

Most of those languages are as close to dead and buried as can be, except maybe on an academic's or aging hobbyist's bookshelf, or perhaps running on a ghost machine in a forgotten room at a large corporation or government office. The majority of people who programmed in those languages in their heydays have long since retired. Sure, there were languages before C that did Important Things, but C works as a starting point of discussion because most programmers today have at least heard of it, even if they never use it. Aside from NASA or JPL, who would even start a new project in any of those languages, because of one important paradigm?

pjmlp 11y ago
No, that is called rewriting history. Maybe we should totally ignore what the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians among other civilizations brought to mankind, because we weren't born in those days.
- agumonkey 11y ago
  That says something about human nature, do we care about the genes or the face that carries them ?
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Read my link... just the numbered list if you're in a hurry cuz it takes only minute or two. Any discussion of C vs other languages should be able to explain why C is the way it is and why a replacement should be different. If C wins, it should be due to being the best design for systems programming. Any information about C should also be accurate. As pjmp said, article rewrites history by falsely claiming it was first HLL and that it was designed for portability. Neither were true. Additionally, competing languages (even on PDP-11!) had better maintainability, safety/security, and ability to code in the large. Many were portable with a few performing as well. BCPL was whatever could compile on a 1960's computer: nothing more. C was BCPL w/ structs and byte-orientation. So, should we start with one of the better languages that resemble good languages of today to define attributes for systems programming? Or should we start with a semi-language that had no design, tons of problems, and all so it could compile on a 1960's machine? I think the former is the obvious choice. That those supporting the latter lie about C's origin, design, competition at the time, and so on to push it instead is... more disturbing. Hence, me countering it readily. "Aside from NASA or JPL, who would even start a new project in any of those languages, because of one important paradigm?" There were repeatedly languages from that time available. The best for modern 3GL users were Wirth's line: industrial Pascal's, Modula-2, Modula-3 (especially), Oberon's. All were used to write OS's on minimal hardware with more readability and safety than C. Ada was rougher but safer and did the job too. LISP and ML derived languages only got better and better over time with Racket & Ocaml being the best today. I've even seen Ocaml used with an 8-bit runtime (!). There were also macro-assemblers that focused on semi-HLL's for ultra-efficiency and optimization. LLVM comes to mind. ;) This stuff didn't fade into obscurity or only for obscure platforms. Good versions stayed around in industrial form for decades with little adoption while people tried building on something that wasn't designed for all its uses. Just compiling on an EDSAC in 1960's.
- drivingmenuts 11y ago
  You need to re-read the OP's linked article. It's not an academic paper or even anything like. It's. Notes. From. A. Presentation. It's not the entire history of compiler languages and the lineages and branchings thereof which make Game of Thrones look like Jane and Dick. If you're going to spend four sentences speaking about a core language, that is still in active use, that the audience will have heard of then C is a far better goto language than any of the ones listed above. > All were used to write OS's on minimal hardware with more readability and safety than C. Awesome. That decade abended years ago. They are no longer germane to a discussion at a conference in 2015, unless you're deep diving in language lineage. Which the author clearly wasn't. Edit: my bad. It was seven sentences.
  - pjmlp 11y ago
    That is all fine and dandy if the presenter didn't lie to the audience: "Before C there was assembly language...." Is clearly a misinformation given to the audience. Just because it wasn't a scientific paper doesn't make it less wrong. The presenter has clearly driven all in the audience that don't know better, that C was the first high level systems information programming language. Had he said that C was the systems programming language that won the hearts of the systems programmers we wouldn't be discussing this. This misinformation has been happening since the mid-90.
    - drivingmenuts 11y ago
      ""Before C there was assembly language" is technically correct, unless you know something I'm unaware of. That there were other languages between those two isn't important in the context of creating an example in one presentation and it for-sure is not factually wrong. Just so we're absolutely crystal-clear here, how, exactly, would you have phrased the paragraph about C, without wandering off into the endless maze of computer language lineages, but keeping the same general intent, in the context of the remainder of the presentation?
      - pjmlp 11y ago

pjmlp 11y ago

No, that is called rewriting history. Maybe we should totally ignore what the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians among other civilizations brought to mankind, because we weren't born in those days.

agumonkey 11y ago
That says something about human nature, do we care about the genes or the face that carries them ?

nickpsecurity 11y ago

Read my link... just the numbered list if you're in a hurry cuz it takes only minute or two. Any discussion of C vs other languages should be able to explain why C is the way it is and why a replacement should be different. If C wins, it should be due to being the best design for systems programming. Any information about C should also be accurate. As pjmp said, article rewrites history by falsely claiming it was first HLL and that it was designed for portability. Neither were true. Additionally, competing languages (even on PDP-11!) had better maintainability, safety/security, and ability to code in the large. Many were portable with a few performing as well. BCPL was whatever could compile on a 1960's computer: nothing more. C was BCPL w/ structs and byte-orientation. So, should we start with one of the better languages that resemble good languages of today to define attributes for systems programming? Or should we start with a semi-language that had no design, tons of problems, and all so it could compile on a 1960's machine? I think the former is the obvious choice. That those supporting the latter lie about C's origin, design, competition at the time, and so on to push it instead is... more disturbing. Hence, me countering it readily. "Aside from NASA or JPL, who would even start a new project in any of those languages, because of one important paradigm?" There were repeatedly languages from that time available. The best for modern 3GL users were Wirth's line: industrial Pascal's, Modula-2, Modula-3 (especially), Oberon's. All were used to write OS's on minimal hardware with more readability and safety than C. Ada was rougher but safer and did the job too. LISP and ML derived languages only got better and better over time with Racket & Ocaml being the best today. I've even seen Ocaml used with an 8-bit runtime (!). There were also macro-assemblers that focused on semi-HLL's for ultra-efficiency and optimization. LLVM comes to mind. ;) This stuff didn't fade into obscurity or only for obscure platforms. Good versions stayed around in industrial form for decades with little adoption while people tried building on something that wasn't designed for all its uses. Just compiling on an EDSAC in 1960's.

drivingmenuts 11y ago
You need to re-read the OP's linked article. It's not an academic paper or even anything like. It's. Notes. From. A. Presentation. It's not the entire history of compiler languages and the lineages and branchings thereof which make Game of Thrones look like Jane and Dick. If you're going to spend four sentences speaking about a core language, that is still in active use, that the audience will have heard of then C is a far better goto language than any of the ones listed above. > All were used to write OS's on minimal hardware with more readability and safety than C. Awesome. That decade abended years ago. They are no longer germane to a discussion at a conference in 2015, unless you're deep diving in language lineage. Which the author clearly wasn't. Edit: my bad. It was seven sentences.
- pjmlp 11y ago
  That is all fine and dandy if the presenter didn't lie to the audience: "Before C there was assembly language...." Is clearly a misinformation given to the audience. Just because it wasn't a scientific paper doesn't make it less wrong. The presenter has clearly driven all in the audience that don't know better, that C was the first high level systems information programming language. Had he said that C was the systems programming language that won the hearts of the systems programmers we wouldn't be discussing this. This misinformation has been happening since the mid-90.
  - drivingmenuts 11y ago
    ""Before C there was assembly language" is technically correct, unless you know something I'm unaware of. That there were other languages between those two isn't important in the context of creating an example in one presentation and it for-sure is not factually wrong. Just so we're absolutely crystal-clear here, how, exactly, would you have phrased the paragraph about C, without wandering off into the endless maze of computer language lineages, but keeping the same general intent, in the context of the remainder of the presentation?
    - pjmlp 11y ago