I mean, his approach would have prevented Microsoft from ever existing. Or Linux. Or Apple. Which means we never would have had the PC revolution. In an altern

I mean, his approach would have prevented Microsoft from ever existing. Or Linux. Or Apple. Which means we never would have had the PC revolution. In an alternate continuity where Dijkstra's methods prevailed, other companies and products would have arisen instead, or perhaps the same but under different circumstances. There is no reason to believe the PC revolution would have never occurred, as that was largely a result of commodity hardware (where QC is much more stringent than in software). The software would have been written anyway, but it might have been less bad. We'd miss 99% of what computers have brought us. Strictly speaking, no. The quantity of software might have been less, but the quality and thus the actual features would have been either the same in aggregate, or, as intended, far more progressive and in line with the academic state of the art.