3 ms·

Pascal is a neat language. I am generally in agreement with Kernighan's assessment of it (https://www.lysator.liu.se/c/bwk-on-pascal.html https://www.lysator.li

Pascal is a neat language. I am generally in agreement with Kernighan's assessment of it (https://www.lysator.liu.se/c/bwk-on-pascal.html https://www.lysator.liu.se/c/bwk-on-pascal.html), but most of the problems he lists have since been fixed by many implementations of the language, leaving something quite usable, and a heck of a lot safer than C. It is unsurprising, in light of this, that the person who submitted this to HN is pjmlp, a well-known fan of Wirth's languages, and a person who notably dislikes C. He's probably also a Unix Hater, although I never asked. Not that any of this is bad, mind you (I was raised on C/UNIX, and even I'll indulge in some Unix-Hating from time to time (It's probably the Lisp that does it), and whether or not you like the Wirth family, you can't deny it's interesting), but it explains a lot about why this (exceptionally interesting, by the way) project was likely submitted to HN.

clouddrover 10y ago
> most of the problems he lists have since been fixed by many implementations of the language Which problems haven't been fixed?
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  None I can think of, but I've long since given up on absolute certainty.
  - clouddrover 10y ago
    Then what are you in agreement with in Kernighan's assessment of Pascal? His assessment may have made sense 35 years ago but is out of date today.
    - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
      ...Which was the point I was trying to make. I am in agreement with Kernighan's assessment of the language he assessed. This is not the same language that Pascal is today. This was probably confusing. I am sorry.
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      Even 35 years ago it didn't make much sense, because he deliberately ignored the Pascal dialects that didn't had those set of issues. Also C outside UNIX was just a mix of K&R C dialects, each with its own set of quirks and as portable across compiler vendors, as those Pascal dialects.
      - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
        C inside of unix, which is probably the world Brian was coming from, didn't have those problems. And he had a point about the lack of unification. As to ignoring the dialects lacking that set of issues, I don't see how so. He explicitly stated that various dialects had solved the problems he discussed, but noted that such solutions were non-portable. So I still consider it a valid assessment of the language he assessed. But I also acknowledge that Pascal is no longer that language.

clouddrover 10y ago

> most of the problems he lists have since been fixed by many implementations of the language Which problems haven't been fixed?

qwertyuiop924 10y ago
None I can think of, but I've long since given up on absolute certainty.
- clouddrover 10y ago
  Then what are you in agreement with in Kernighan's assessment of Pascal? His assessment may have made sense 35 years ago but is out of date today.
  - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
    ...Which was the point I was trying to make. I am in agreement with Kernighan's assessment of the language he assessed. This is not the same language that Pascal is today. This was probably confusing. I am sorry.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    Even 35 years ago it didn't make much sense, because he deliberately ignored the Pascal dialects that didn't had those set of issues. Also C outside UNIX was just a mix of K&R C dialects, each with its own set of quirks and as portable across compiler vendors, as those Pascal dialects.
    - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
      C inside of unix, which is probably the world Brian was coming from, didn't have those problems. And he had a point about the lack of unification. As to ignoring the dialects lacking that set of issues, I don't see how so. He explicitly stated that various dialects had solved the problems he discussed, but noted that such solutions were non-portable. So I still consider it a valid assessment of the language he assessed. But I also acknowledge that Pascal is no longer that language.