4 ms·

C was quite a few years before Modula-2. C was developed in 1972 and was heavily used in UNIX by 1973. Development of Modula-2 wasn't started until 1977 and it

by zik 11y ago

C was quite a few years before Modula-2. C was developed in 1972 and was heavily used in UNIX by 1973. Development of Modula-2 wasn't started until 1977 and it wasn't widely available until the 1980s.

cmrdporcupine 11y ago
But C on microcomputers did not come any earlier than Pascal or Modula-2 compilers. My first compiler was Modula-2 on my Atari ST. But it was difficult to do much in it because so much of the OS documentation and example code was geared towards C. Also compiling on a floppy based system (couldn't afford a hard disk) was terrible.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  I had to do lots of transfers with floppies but never had to do iterative development on one. I feel for you, bro. :)
pjmlp 11y ago
But quite a few years later than Algol and PL variants.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Point was we see two traditions developing: 1. Languages designed to be high-level, readable, optionally easy to compile, work with large programs, have safety, and compile to efficient code. 2. Two languages, BCPL and C, that strip as much of that as possible to compile on an EDSAC and PDP-11 respectively. Thompson and Ritchie along with the masses went with No 2 while a number of groups with minimal resources went with No 1 with better outcomes. At each step of the way, groups in No 1 were producing better languages with more robust apps. Yet, Thompson et al continue to invest in improving No 2. By present day, most fans of No 2 forget No 1 existed, push No 2 as if it was designed like No 1, and praise what No 2 brought us whereas it actually hampered investments No 1 enabled easily. Compiler, HW, and OS people should've invested in a small language from No 1 category as Wirth's people did. That Pascal/P got ported to 70 architectures, some 8-bit, tells me No 1 category wasn't too inefficient or difficult either. Just gotta avoid heavyweights like PL/1.

by zik 11y ago

cmrdporcupine 11y ago

But C on microcomputers did not come any earlier than Pascal or Modula-2 compilers. My first compiler was Modula-2 on my Atari ST. But it was difficult to do much in it because so much of the OS documentation and example code was geared towards C. Also compiling on a floppy based system (couldn't afford a hard disk) was terrible.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
I had to do lots of transfers with floppies but never had to do iterative development on one. I feel for you, bro. :)

pjmlp 11y ago

But quite a few years later than Algol and PL variants.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

Point was we see two traditions developing: 1. Languages designed to be high-level, readable, optionally easy to compile, work with large programs, have safety, and compile to efficient code. 2. Two languages, BCPL and C, that strip as much of that as possible to compile on an EDSAC and PDP-11 respectively. Thompson and Ritchie along with the masses went with No 2 while a number of groups with minimal resources went with No 1 with better outcomes. At each step of the way, groups in No 1 were producing better languages with more robust apps. Yet, Thompson et al continue to invest in improving No 2. By present day, most fans of No 2 forget No 1 existed, push No 2 as if it was designed like No 1, and praise what No 2 brought us whereas it actually hampered investments No 1 enabled easily. Compiler, HW, and OS people should've invested in a small language from No 1 category as Wirth's people did. That Pascal/P got ported to 70 architectures, some 8-bit, tells me No 1 category wasn't too inefficient or difficult either. Just gotta avoid heavyweights like PL/1.