> UCSD Pascal bwk's point, then as now, was that once you deviated from Standard Pascal, you had to either bet on a specific horse in the non-standard Pascal r

> UCSD Pascal bwk's point, then as now, was that once you deviated from Standard Pascal, you had to either bet on a specific horse in the non-standard Pascal race, or develop your own Pascal-like language with its own inherent defects, similar to but different from the defects of Standard Pascal and other Pascal-like languages. Your code would likely never interoperate with anyone else's Pascal variant. C, which had one de facto standard implementation and less genetic drift (because the standards, first K&R and then ANSI and ISO, were never as terrible as Standard Pascal's definition), didn't suffer from this nearly as much. Mesa didn't, either, but only because it was fairly obscure, and there sure were a lot of Foogols running around for a while, of which Pascal and its semi-clones formed only one family.