There is a strong argument that the accusation of Pascal not being useful, is not anything based on facts, history, or reality. It is also weird to put Pascal

There is a strong argument that the accusation of Pascal not being useful, is not anything based on facts, history, or reality. It is also weird to put Pascal into a box, as if the language is not allowed to evolve/change. C and C++ is not the same language that it was 20 years ago. Doesn't make sense to have this expectation for Pascal. In addition, you can't gloss over that the different dialects of Pascal addressed issues. For those that program with Pascal, these differences are often minor or considered a plus. You can choose the dialect that best suits your needs. Many would say that it is unfair to bring up Kernighan's 40 year old paper (from 1981). Things in the Pascal world changed almost immediately after it was published. Turbo Pascal came out in 1983, and addressed various issues. Then Apple created Object Pascal in 1986, addressing even more. Then came Delphi (1995) and Free Pascal/Lazarus (1997). Take a look at the below link, Which addresses most points outlined in the paper, in terms of modern dialects of Pascal/Object Pascal. https://wiki.freepascal.org/Why_Pascal_is_Not_My_Favorite_Programming_Language https://wiki.freepascal.org/Why_Pascal_is_Not_My_Favorite_Pr... Arguably, Kernighan created a "hit piece" paper for AT&T Bell Laboratories (they are on the document). AT&T was pushing C and then C++, so were very much trying to take down Pascal. This is a document that was "weaponized" to be used against competition, and very strangely, it still being used as such when most of the points presented are no longer relevant.