3 ms·

Counterpoint: Some other “worse” would have probably taken over. We’ve seen this in the personal computing market, where MS-DOS (later Windows) and the x86 won

Counterpoint: Some other “worse” would have probably taken over. We’ve seen this in the personal computing market, where MS-DOS (later Windows) and the x86 won out against competing operating systems and ISAs not because of technical superiority, but because of market forces and cost. Look at the evolution of the Web, especially JavaScript.... It’s likely that Unix might not had spread if AT&T didn’t give it relatively liberal licensing in the pre-divestiture era. But it’s also likely that something else that was cheap and readily adaptable would’ve taken over instead, even if it wasn’t technically superior to its competitors.

pjmlp 2y ago
Or maybe we would be enjoying VMS or something like that, not written in a language that 60 years later after its inception still doesn't do bounds checking and decays arrays into pointers to save typing four characters.
- kragen 2y ago
  BLISS-11 didn't do bounds-checking either. VMS was my favorite operating system until I got access to a Unix. People chose Unix because it was better—and not just by a little. Handicapping Unix wouldn't have improved the alternative systems.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    VMS also supported Pascal and BASIC dialects for systems programming, in equal footing to BLISS. People choose free beer, it always goes even if warm.
    - kragen 2y ago
      VAX Pascal is viable for systems programming (though standard Pascal wasn't). I only ever used VAX BASIC a tiny bit; was it interpreted like microcomputer BASICs? That made BASIC a nonstarter for "serious software" in the 80s. Not having records, local variables, or subroutine parameters was also a pretty big problem, but maybe VAX BASIC fixed that. I wasn't paying for access to VMS either; it just didn't hold a candle to Unix.
      - pjmlp 2y ago
        No one really uses standard C for systems programming, yet that always applies to other languages. There is always Assembly, compiler extensions, or OS specific APIs, as part of the deliverable. Funny how UNIX folks always have these two weights approach. I beg to differ in wax quality for candles, but if we get to do juice with bitter lemons, so be it. At least is refreshing during Summer.
        kragen 2y ago
        Do you know if VAX BASIC fixed the problems I mentioned in BASIC? Was it interpreted? K&R C has separate compilation, pointer casting, a usable but janky and bug-prone variable-length string type, variadic functions, static variables, literal data of array and record types, bitwise operations, a filesystem access API, and an array iterator type. None of those require "assembly, compiler extensions, or OS specific APIs." (Well, I'm not sure if they specified variadic functions in the book. The first ANSI C did.) Jensen & Wirth Pascal has none of those, making it completely inadequate for anything beyond classroom use, which was what it was designed for. Each Pascal implementation that was used for systems programming did of course add all of these features, but many of them added them in incompatible ways, with the result that, for example, TeX had to implement its own string type (in WEB).
        pjmlp 2y ago
        VAX BASIC was always compiled, it was its predecessors that were not, bitsavers or wikipedia have the background info. Take all the Assembly routines from libc, and K&R C turns into a macro assembler with nicer syntax. And not a good one, given that real macro assemblers actually have better macro capabilities, alongside their high level constructs. Quite visible in the C dialects that were actually available outside UNIX, on computers people could afford, like the RatC (Made availalbe via A book on C) and Small-C (DDJ article series). Well even dumbest standard pascal compilers like GPC do allow calling into Assembly. So it should count for Pascal as well, if that is the measure. Then we have this thing sticking with ISO Pascal from and its dialects, always ignoring that this was seen as an issue, that that is why Modula-2 exists since 1978, and Extended Pascal since 1991, one year later after ANSI C (C89 got a short C90 revision fix). Also following the K&R C alongside Assembly line, several companies were quite successful with Pascal dialect alongside Assembly, including a famous fruit company. Back in 2024, C extensions keep being celebrated to the point the most famous UNIX clone can only be compiled with a specific compiler, and the second alternative is only possible after a search company has burned lots of money making it possible. But hey, lets stick to Pascal and its dialects.

pjmlp 2y ago

Or maybe we would be enjoying VMS or something like that, not written in a language that 60 years later after its inception still doesn't do bounds checking and decays arrays into pointers to save typing four characters.

kragen 2y ago
BLISS-11 didn't do bounds-checking either. VMS was my favorite operating system until I got access to a Unix. People chose Unix because it was better—and not just by a little. Handicapping Unix wouldn't have improved the alternative systems.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  VMS also supported Pascal and BASIC dialects for systems programming, in equal footing to BLISS. People choose free beer, it always goes even if warm.
  - kragen 2y ago
    VAX Pascal is viable for systems programming (though standard Pascal wasn't). I only ever used VAX BASIC a tiny bit; was it interpreted like microcomputer BASICs? That made BASIC a nonstarter for "serious software" in the 80s. Not having records, local variables, or subroutine parameters was also a pretty big problem, but maybe VAX BASIC fixed that. I wasn't paying for access to VMS either; it just didn't hold a candle to Unix.
    - pjmlp 2y ago
      No one really uses standard C for systems programming, yet that always applies to other languages. There is always Assembly, compiler extensions, or OS specific APIs, as part of the deliverable. Funny how UNIX folks always have these two weights approach. I beg to differ in wax quality for candles, but if we get to do juice with bitter lemons, so be it. At least is refreshing during Summer.
      - kragen 2y ago
        Do you know if VAX BASIC fixed the problems I mentioned in BASIC? Was it interpreted? K&R C has separate compilation, pointer casting, a usable but janky and bug-prone variable-length string type, variadic functions, static variables, literal data of array and record types, bitwise operations, a filesystem access API, and an array iterator type. None of those require "assembly, compiler extensions, or OS specific APIs." (Well, I'm not sure if they specified variadic functions in the book. The first ANSI C did.) Jensen & Wirth Pascal has none of those, making it completely inadequate for anything beyond classroom use, which was what it was designed for. Each Pascal implementation that was used for systems programming did of course add all of these features, but many of them added them in incompatible ways, with the result that, for example, TeX had to implement its own string type (in WEB).
        pjmlp 2y ago
        VAX BASIC was always compiled, it was its predecessors that were not, bitsavers or wikipedia have the background info. Take all the Assembly routines from libc, and K&R C turns into a macro assembler with nicer syntax. And not a good one, given that real macro assemblers actually have better macro capabilities, alongside their high level constructs. Quite visible in the C dialects that were actually available outside UNIX, on computers people could afford, like the RatC (Made availalbe via A book on C) and Small-C (DDJ article series). Well even dumbest standard pascal compilers like GPC do allow calling into Assembly. So it should count for Pascal as well, if that is the measure. Then we have this thing sticking with ISO Pascal from and its dialects, always ignoring that this was seen as an issue, that that is why Modula-2 exists since 1978, and Extended Pascal since 1991, one year later after ANSI C (C89 got a short C90 revision fix). Also following the K&R C alongside Assembly line, several companies were quite successful with Pascal dialect alongside Assembly, including a famous fruit company. Back in 2024, C extensions keep being celebrated to the point the most famous UNIX clone can only be compiled with a specific compiler, and the second alternative is only possible after a search company has burned lots of money making it possible. But hey, lets stick to Pascal and its dialects.