Was Dennis Ritchie being too modest in this quote about C and Pascal?Where does this esoteric Pascal operator come from?When were the analogs of the C operators “break” and “continue” introduced in Pascal?What was the point of Apple Pascal having its own file system?Why was UNIX never backported to the PDP-7?Why was nil defined as a reserved word in Pascal?x86 as a Pascal Machine?Was there ever a compiler type that was just large enough to contain a memory segment?Why is the following p-Code generated by the Apple 3 pascal compiler?Was dynamic type check in Pascal commonplace?

"Dear Stack Exchange, I am very disappointed in you" - How to construct a strong opening line in a letter?

Slow coworker receiving compliments while I receive complaints

Novel set in the future, children cannot change the class they are born into, one class is made uneducated by associating books with pain

Is there a practical way of making democratic-like system skewed towards competence?

Sum in bash outside while read line

What is the German word for: "It only works when I try to show you how it does not work"?

A demigod among men

Is data science mathematically interesting?

How should I tell a professor the answer to something he doesn't know?

Did Feynman cite a fallacy about only circles having the same width in all directions as a reason for the Challenger disaster?

Google can't fetch large sitemap with 50k URLs, nor will browsers render it

Get first and last day of the week in Ampscript

Did smallpox emerge in 1580?

How did Ron get five hundred Chocolate Frog cards?

If the music alphabet had more than 7 letters would octaves still sound like the same note?

I didn't do any exit passport control when leaving Japan. What should I do?

Why are seats at the rear of a plane sometimes unavailable even though many other seats are available in the plane?

Shortest way to get an EOF Error

UK PM is taking his proposal to EU but has not proposed to his own parliament - can he legally bypass the UK parliament?

How can AnyDVD destroy a DVD drive?

Is it realistic that an advanced species isn't good at war?

Disrespectful employee going above my head and telling me what to do. I am his manager

5v home network

What causes standard door hinges to close up to a certain amount automatically?



Was Dennis Ritchie being too modest in this quote about C and Pascal?


Where does this esoteric Pascal operator come from?When were the analogs of the C operators “break” and “continue” introduced in Pascal?What was the point of Apple Pascal having its own file system?Why was UNIX never backported to the PDP-7?Why was nil defined as a reserved word in Pascal?x86 as a Pascal Machine?Was there ever a compiler type that was just large enough to contain a memory segment?Why is the following p-Code generated by the Apple 3 pascal compiler?Was dynamic type check in Pascal commonplace?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;









28

















In his 1993 conference proceeding The Development of the C Language, Dennis Ritchie stated




Successors



C and even B have several direct descendants, though they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny.




Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?



We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C). Some languages may be descended from both.



(I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)






c pascal







share|improve this question





















  • 19





    It's difficult to say without knowing the context, but given Ritchie's opinion about Pascal, I'd interpret "they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny" as a tongue-in-cheek criticism along the lines of "Pascal was so bad it needed lots of successors to at least get a few things right". If this reading is correct, being "too modest" isn't what this is about...

    – dirkt
    Apr 25 at 10:33











  • Aren't some features of C itself derived from Pascal? So if you're taking this definition in the loosest sense, all descendants of C are also descendants of Pascal, (if not direct descendants) so Pascal would obviously have to have more.

    – Darrel Hoffman
    Apr 25 at 19:37







  • 2





    @Darrel Pascal and C are contemporaneous; features of C which look like Pascal are more likely to come from Algol (which both C and Pascal derive from).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 26 at 11:11











  • "and even B" -> does B actually have any known direct successors other than C? Nothing linked from this page lists anything else. I was under the impression that the distinction between B and C is itself largely retroactive and there wasn't really a clear demarcation at the time C evolved gradually from it, so much as that "new B" eventually needed a new name.

    – Leushenko
    Apr 27 at 12:07







  • 2





    @Leushenko Ritchie mentions Eh and Zed as descendants of B.

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 29 at 10:38

















28

















In his 1993 conference proceeding The Development of the C Language, Dennis Ritchie stated




Successors



C and even B have several direct descendants, though they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny.




Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?



We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C). Some languages may be descended from both.



(I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)






c pascal







share|improve this question





















  • 19





    It's difficult to say without knowing the context, but given Ritchie's opinion about Pascal, I'd interpret "they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny" as a tongue-in-cheek criticism along the lines of "Pascal was so bad it needed lots of successors to at least get a few things right". If this reading is correct, being "too modest" isn't what this is about...

    – dirkt
    Apr 25 at 10:33











  • Aren't some features of C itself derived from Pascal? So if you're taking this definition in the loosest sense, all descendants of C are also descendants of Pascal, (if not direct descendants) so Pascal would obviously have to have more.

    – Darrel Hoffman
    Apr 25 at 19:37







  • 2





    @Darrel Pascal and C are contemporaneous; features of C which look like Pascal are more likely to come from Algol (which both C and Pascal derive from).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 26 at 11:11











  • "and even B" -> does B actually have any known direct successors other than C? Nothing linked from this page lists anything else. I was under the impression that the distinction between B and C is itself largely retroactive and there wasn't really a clear demarcation at the time C evolved gradually from it, so much as that "new B" eventually needed a new name.

    – Leushenko
    Apr 27 at 12:07







  • 2





    @Leushenko Ritchie mentions Eh and Zed as descendants of B.

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 29 at 10:38













28












28








28


3






In his 1993 conference proceeding The Development of the C Language, Dennis Ritchie stated




Successors



C and even B have several direct descendants, though they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny.




Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?



We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C). Some languages may be descended from both.



(I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)






c pascal







share|improve this question














In his 1993 conference proceeding The Development of the C Language, Dennis Ritchie stated




Successors



C and even B have several direct descendants, though they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny.




Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?



We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C). Some languages may be descended from both.



(I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)






c pascal




c pascal






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question



share|improve this question










asked Apr 25 at 3:23









DrSheldonDrSheldon

3,4764 gold badges17 silver badges46 bronze badges




3,4764 gold badges17 silver badges46 bronze badges










  • 19





    It's difficult to say without knowing the context, but given Ritchie's opinion about Pascal, I'd interpret "they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny" as a tongue-in-cheek criticism along the lines of "Pascal was so bad it needed lots of successors to at least get a few things right". If this reading is correct, being "too modest" isn't what this is about...

    – dirkt
    Apr 25 at 10:33











  • Aren't some features of C itself derived from Pascal? So if you're taking this definition in the loosest sense, all descendants of C are also descendants of Pascal, (if not direct descendants) so Pascal would obviously have to have more.

    – Darrel Hoffman
    Apr 25 at 19:37







  • 2





    @Darrel Pascal and C are contemporaneous; features of C which look like Pascal are more likely to come from Algol (which both C and Pascal derive from).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 26 at 11:11











  • "and even B" -> does B actually have any known direct successors other than C? Nothing linked from this page lists anything else. I was under the impression that the distinction between B and C is itself largely retroactive and there wasn't really a clear demarcation at the time C evolved gradually from it, so much as that "new B" eventually needed a new name.

    – Leushenko
    Apr 27 at 12:07







  • 2





    @Leushenko Ritchie mentions Eh and Zed as descendants of B.

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 29 at 10:38












  • 19





    It's difficult to say without knowing the context, but given Ritchie's opinion about Pascal, I'd interpret "they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny" as a tongue-in-cheek criticism along the lines of "Pascal was so bad it needed lots of successors to at least get a few things right". If this reading is correct, being "too modest" isn't what this is about...

    – dirkt
    Apr 25 at 10:33











  • Aren't some features of C itself derived from Pascal? So if you're taking this definition in the loosest sense, all descendants of C are also descendants of Pascal, (if not direct descendants) so Pascal would obviously have to have more.

    – Darrel Hoffman
    Apr 25 at 19:37







  • 2





    @Darrel Pascal and C are contemporaneous; features of C which look like Pascal are more likely to come from Algol (which both C and Pascal derive from).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 26 at 11:11











  • "and even B" -> does B actually have any known direct successors other than C? Nothing linked from this page lists anything else. I was under the impression that the distinction between B and C is itself largely retroactive and there wasn't really a clear demarcation at the time C evolved gradually from it, so much as that "new B" eventually needed a new name.

    – Leushenko
    Apr 27 at 12:07







  • 2





    @Leushenko Ritchie mentions Eh and Zed as descendants of B.

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 29 at 10:38







19




19





It's difficult to say without knowing the context, but given Ritchie's opinion about Pascal, I'd interpret "they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny" as a tongue-in-cheek criticism along the lines of "Pascal was so bad it needed lots of successors to at least get a few things right". If this reading is correct, being "too modest" isn't what this is about...

– dirkt
Apr 25 at 10:33





It's difficult to say without knowing the context, but given Ritchie's opinion about Pascal, I'd interpret "they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny" as a tongue-in-cheek criticism along the lines of "Pascal was so bad it needed lots of successors to at least get a few things right". If this reading is correct, being "too modest" isn't what this is about...

– dirkt
Apr 25 at 10:33













Aren't some features of C itself derived from Pascal? So if you're taking this definition in the loosest sense, all descendants of C are also descendants of Pascal, (if not direct descendants) so Pascal would obviously have to have more.

– Darrel Hoffman
Apr 25 at 19:37






Aren't some features of C itself derived from Pascal? So if you're taking this definition in the loosest sense, all descendants of C are also descendants of Pascal, (if not direct descendants) so Pascal would obviously have to have more.

– Darrel Hoffman
Apr 25 at 19:37





2




2





@Darrel Pascal and C are contemporaneous; features of C which look like Pascal are more likely to come from Algol (which both C and Pascal derive from).

– Stephen Kitt
Apr 26 at 11:11





@Darrel Pascal and C are contemporaneous; features of C which look like Pascal are more likely to come from Algol (which both C and Pascal derive from).

– Stephen Kitt
Apr 26 at 11:11













"and even B" -> does B actually have any known direct successors other than C? Nothing linked from this page lists anything else. I was under the impression that the distinction between B and C is itself largely retroactive and there wasn't really a clear demarcation at the time C evolved gradually from it, so much as that "new B" eventually needed a new name.

– Leushenko
Apr 27 at 12:07






"and even B" -> does B actually have any known direct successors other than C? Nothing linked from this page lists anything else. I was under the impression that the distinction between B and C is itself largely retroactive and there wasn't really a clear demarcation at the time C evolved gradually from it, so much as that "new B" eventually needed a new name.

– Leushenko
Apr 27 at 12:07





2




2





@Leushenko Ritchie mentions Eh and Zed as descendants of B.

– Stephen Kitt
Apr 29 at 10:38





@Leushenko Ritchie mentions Eh and Zed as descendants of B.

– Stephen Kitt
Apr 29 at 10:38










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















35



















Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest?




I’m not sure modesty plays a part here; I don’t see any statement of value attached to the size of a language’s family.




As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?




Yes, he was correct, at least as phrased in the paper. Perceptions are perhaps biased because people tend to consider Pascal’s family tree v. C’s direct descendants (as the paper suggests itself); the main direct descendants of C by 1993 are listed in the paper:



  • Concurrent C

  • Objective C

  • C*

  • C++

Expanding the search somewhat (see for example O’Reilly’s language poster and Éric Lévénez’ Computer Languages History), one could add other direct descendants which are arguably very similar to C, although I’m not sure Ritchie was considering them when writing the paper in question:



  • the C shell

  • AWK

By 1993, Pascal had a similar number of direct descendants (identical in this analysis, but my counts are no doubt partial):



  • CLU

  • Mesa

  • Modula

  • Ada

  • Object Pascal

  • Concurrent Pascal

but in my experience people tend to think of the Pascal “progeny” as including some indirect descendants, in particular the Modula and Oberon families (Modula, Modula-2, Modula-3, Oberon, Oberon-2), and variants of Pascal itself since “core” Pascal wasn’t really usable as-is so developers used platform-specific dialects.



As you mention yourself, later languages tried to integrate lessons learned from both C-related and Pascal-related languages, and they all derive from Algol anyway. (Pascal itself started off as suggested improvements to Algol X, which weren’t accepted into the language.) Languages where the family trees rejoin include Python and Icon.



The reason Pascal is at the root of a larger family tree hasn’t been evoked yet.



Pascal was designed by Niklaus Wirth, a researcher whose work focused on studying programming itself, including the use of programming languages as teaching tools and structuring tools (for structuring programmers’ minds); programming languages were nearly a side-effect of that research, and Wirth iterated on programming languages multiple times, which led to a profusion of languages and variants. Pascal was widely studied in academic circles, and others also pursued this type of research, leading to more descendants than Wirth himself could produce.



C on the other hand was designed by Dennis Ritchie, as a tool to develop Unix. It wasn’t a research vehicle, and thus didn’t immediately produce the wealth of variants and descendants that Pascal did. It initially spread with its users, not with papers describing it, at least until The C Programming Language was published (six years after the creation of C).



The programming languages genealogical tree project includes a nice diagram, and a large list of other resources on the topic.






share|improve this answer























  • 11





    There's a nice quote about Wirth's intentions behind Pascal included on the Free Pascal Wiki: "Occasionally, it has been claimed that Pascal was designed as a language for teaching. Although this is correct, its use in teaching was not the only goal. In fact, I do not believe in using tools and formalisms in teaching that are inadequate for any practical task.".

    – TripeHound
    Apr 25 at 7:56






  • 6





    I think it is much more accurate to say that Algol was the root of these languages, not Pascal. Pascal was largely created to be a better Algol after the debacle of Algol68, and there were a wide variety of other spin-offs that were in widespread use at the time - JOVIAL being an obvious example.

    – Maury Markowitz
    Apr 25 at 10:33






  • 4





    @Maury basing the discussion on Algol makes it harder to create an artificial distinction between C and Pascal ;-).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 25 at 13:14






  • 3





    @TripeHound the Lindsey paper covers the debacle in detail. To give you an idea, it introduction starts with “The World seems to have a rather negative perception of ALGOL 68. The language has been said to be “too big”, to be defined by an “unreadable Report” produced by a committee which “broke up in disarray”, to have no implementations, and to have no users.” (The paper does try to redeem the language.)

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 25 at 13:54






  • 4





    Algol68 was widely used as the canonical example of second-system-effect in the 1970s. It was in all the language design books of the era. It added all sorts of huge distributed costs to implement features that no one actually used, yet left many of the original implementation problems from earlier versions unsolved. But all my refs are dead tree, but looking in Google Books you can find many comments as to its sheer size and complexity.

    – Maury Markowitz
    Apr 25 at 16:35



















7


















Short Answer: Yes




Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?




(*1)



Well, it's not as easy as it sounds, as there is no birth certificate with all parents named. Both languages are Algol descendants. And throughout the 1980s Pascal was seen as the way to go - eventually all the way 'til Ada. So yes.




We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C).




Err. No. This falls short of development. To start with, Pascal in its core definition is a very simple language (much more simple than C) intended for teaching classes about basic programming all the way to compiler building. As a result, it was so simplified that serious work was almost impossible - an elegant language for ivory tower games. It lacked strings, usable file I/O and any form of modularisation.



To make it usable for real world application, implementation had to enhance it substantially. And as usual, each and every developer had it his way. A UCSD Pascal program could not be compiled with Pascal/MT+ or Microsoft or Turbo Pascal, as all of them handled things differently.



If at all, then there is a main line promoted by the two most successful products: UCSD Pascal and Turbo Pascal, with the later being an extension of some sort to UCSD Pascal. The huge success of TP did lead to many other moving toward compatible constructs.



Heck, and then there are languages called Pascal which are derived from already different named languages, like Component Pascal evolved out of Oberon, which itself is a much improved Pascal child.



Bottom line, the distinction when it is a 'new' language or not cannot be made by the name.



Turbo Pascal and its incredible wide spread success (even I was tempted to use it) makes a good maker about how much more successful Pascal was in the 80s than C.




Some languages may be descended from both.




There is no 'pure' linage anywhere in the language world. To some degree all Algol based languages can as well be described as Pascal offsprings.



It may even be necessary to look past the syntactic sugar of brackets vs. keywords to realize that Pascal is mainly data driven, as its big step from Algol was the way to define data structures. In so far Ada makes the most 'pure' child of Pascal anyway (*2). Nowadays a feature to be found across basically all general purpose languages.



But let's try a list of close relatives openly carrying the family tradition:



  • Pascal

  • UCSD Pascal

  • Turbo Pascal

  • Pascal-SC

  • Oberon

  • Modula-2

  • Component-Pascal

  • Delphi

  • Concurrent Pascal

  • Pascal XL

  • Object Pascal

  • Pocket Studio

  • Vector Pascal (available for the PS2 !)

  • MS Pascal

  • Compaq Pascal (notable for type casting)

Besides all the variation two lines are notable. One is the Oberon/Modula development driven by Wirth, the other is the Borland Turbo/Delphi line. Each creating their own family of Pascal offspring sharing features. The later creating a linage looking like this:



  • (Pascal)

  • (UCSD Pascal)

  • Turbo Pascal

  • Borland Pascal

  • Object Pascal

  • Delphi

Well, and then there are all the languages with a less clear lineage all the way to JavaScript and Ada.




(I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)




As before, it depends on the way of counting. I'd say Pascal has still an advantage here :))



*1 - It may be noteworthy that Brian Kernighan in contrast offered quite some public (and less than correct) criticism about Pascal.



*2 - All the incompatible Pascal variations where the main reasons for the demand that Ada compilers could only be called that way if they adhere to a strict standard ... which eventually delayed Ada compilers way too long to really inherit the Pascal world, making room for C.






share|improve this answer























  • 5





    IMO Turbo Pascal wasn't a commercial success because of Pascal itself, or the Borland extensions to it, but because of its IDE.

    – alephzero
    Apr 25 at 10:46






  • 6





    @alephzero "its IDE" sells it short. It was unbelievably fast. It allowed for frequent iteration in the code because of that speed. That was very much tied to the design of the language itself - namely, the fact that a single-pass compiler was trivial, and that you needed only a tiny amount of memory to store the whole thing. This also allowed for other huge features in the IDE - like the integrated debugger that just worked. Pascal had its shortcomings (most notably the lack of strings), but it was also very friendly, with a great community. People loved both Pascal and Turbo Pascal.

    – Luaan
    Apr 25 at 15:16






  • 2





    @alephzero Back then, the low cost was also a factor. It could easily cost several hundred dollars for other development environments that weren't nearly as friendly.

    – MetalMikester
    Apr 26 at 11:46






  • 1





    @Jasen It seams you are talking about a programmers PoV, which wasn't meant. It's about the compiler being more simple.Pascal follows a strict block concept with no exceptions, where C does restrict constructs to certain levels. For example in Pascal any block may contain a procedure, not possible in C, so the compiler needs to distinguish here, where Pascal just works ahead (Nested procedures are a nice way clarifying source code). Similar With can make sources way more readable than endless lines of nested structures needed in C. Ofc, this may depend on your style.

    – Raffzahn
    Apr 28 at 20:38






  • 3





    @Luaan: More interesting than the integrated debuggger that was added in 5.0 was the way that 2.x and 3.x would identify the locations were runtime errors occurred. In both CP/M and DOS, programs started at address 0x0100, so if the user indicated that an error occurred at address 0x1234, the IDE would set the limit to 0x1134 bytes, disable compiler output, and run the compiler. The part of the program that was being scanned when the compiler hits its limit would be the location of the error.

    – supercat
    Apr 29 at 15:38



















6


















At the time he wrote that, it would have been literally true.
Concurrent Pascal, *Pascal, SUE (which I'd like to know more
about), Modula (not Modula-2), Modula-2, Mesa, Modula-3,
Euclid, Concurrent Euclid, Turing, Turing+, the Gypsy
specification language, LIS (another one I'd like to know
more about), and arguably CLU. Those are just ones I can
call to mind.






share|improve this answer



























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "648"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );














    draft saved

    draft discarded
















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f10822%2fwas-dennis-ritchie-being-too-modest-in-this-quote-about-c-and-pascal%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown


























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    35



















    Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest?




    I’m not sure modesty plays a part here; I don’t see any statement of value attached to the size of a language’s family.




    As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?




    Yes, he was correct, at least as phrased in the paper. Perceptions are perhaps biased because people tend to consider Pascal’s family tree v. C’s direct descendants (as the paper suggests itself); the main direct descendants of C by 1993 are listed in the paper:



    • Concurrent C

    • Objective C

    • C*

    • C++

    Expanding the search somewhat (see for example O’Reilly’s language poster and Éric Lévénez’ Computer Languages History), one could add other direct descendants which are arguably very similar to C, although I’m not sure Ritchie was considering them when writing the paper in question:



    • the C shell

    • AWK

    By 1993, Pascal had a similar number of direct descendants (identical in this analysis, but my counts are no doubt partial):



    • CLU

    • Mesa

    • Modula

    • Ada

    • Object Pascal

    • Concurrent Pascal

    but in my experience people tend to think of the Pascal “progeny” as including some indirect descendants, in particular the Modula and Oberon families (Modula, Modula-2, Modula-3, Oberon, Oberon-2), and variants of Pascal itself since “core” Pascal wasn’t really usable as-is so developers used platform-specific dialects.



    As you mention yourself, later languages tried to integrate lessons learned from both C-related and Pascal-related languages, and they all derive from Algol anyway. (Pascal itself started off as suggested improvements to Algol X, which weren’t accepted into the language.) Languages where the family trees rejoin include Python and Icon.



    The reason Pascal is at the root of a larger family tree hasn’t been evoked yet.



    Pascal was designed by Niklaus Wirth, a researcher whose work focused on studying programming itself, including the use of programming languages as teaching tools and structuring tools (for structuring programmers’ minds); programming languages were nearly a side-effect of that research, and Wirth iterated on programming languages multiple times, which led to a profusion of languages and variants. Pascal was widely studied in academic circles, and others also pursued this type of research, leading to more descendants than Wirth himself could produce.



    C on the other hand was designed by Dennis Ritchie, as a tool to develop Unix. It wasn’t a research vehicle, and thus didn’t immediately produce the wealth of variants and descendants that Pascal did. It initially spread with its users, not with papers describing it, at least until The C Programming Language was published (six years after the creation of C).



    The programming languages genealogical tree project includes a nice diagram, and a large list of other resources on the topic.






    share|improve this answer























    • 11





      There's a nice quote about Wirth's intentions behind Pascal included on the Free Pascal Wiki: "Occasionally, it has been claimed that Pascal was designed as a language for teaching. Although this is correct, its use in teaching was not the only goal. In fact, I do not believe in using tools and formalisms in teaching that are inadequate for any practical task.".

      – TripeHound
      Apr 25 at 7:56






    • 6





      I think it is much more accurate to say that Algol was the root of these languages, not Pascal. Pascal was largely created to be a better Algol after the debacle of Algol68, and there were a wide variety of other spin-offs that were in widespread use at the time - JOVIAL being an obvious example.

      – Maury Markowitz
      Apr 25 at 10:33






    • 4





      @Maury basing the discussion on Algol makes it harder to create an artificial distinction between C and Pascal ;-).

      – Stephen Kitt
      Apr 25 at 13:14






    • 3





      @TripeHound the Lindsey paper covers the debacle in detail. To give you an idea, it introduction starts with “The World seems to have a rather negative perception of ALGOL 68. The language has been said to be “too big”, to be defined by an “unreadable Report” produced by a committee which “broke up in disarray”, to have no implementations, and to have no users.” (The paper does try to redeem the language.)

      – Stephen Kitt
      Apr 25 at 13:54






    • 4





      Algol68 was widely used as the canonical example of second-system-effect in the 1970s. It was in all the language design books of the era. It added all sorts of huge distributed costs to implement features that no one actually used, yet left many of the original implementation problems from earlier versions unsolved. But all my refs are dead tree, but looking in Google Books you can find many comments as to its sheer size and complexity.

      – Maury Markowitz
      Apr 25 at 16:35
















    35



















    Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest?




    I’m not sure modesty plays a part here; I don’t see any statement of value attached to the size of a language’s family.




    As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?




    Yes, he was correct, at least as phrased in the paper. Perceptions are perhaps biased because people tend to consider Pascal’s family tree v. C’s direct descendants (as the paper suggests itself); the main direct descendants of C by 1993 are listed in the paper:



    • Concurrent C

    • Objective C

    • C*

    • C++

    Expanding the search somewhat (see for example O’Reilly’s language poster and Éric Lévénez’ Computer Languages History), one could add other direct descendants which are arguably very similar to C, although I’m not sure Ritchie was considering them when writing the paper in question:



    • the C shell

    • AWK

    By 1993, Pascal had a similar number of direct descendants (identical in this analysis, but my counts are no doubt partial):



    • CLU

    • Mesa

    • Modula

    • Ada

    • Object Pascal

    • Concurrent Pascal

    but in my experience people tend to think of the Pascal “progeny” as including some indirect descendants, in particular the Modula and Oberon families (Modula, Modula-2, Modula-3, Oberon, Oberon-2), and variants of Pascal itself since “core” Pascal wasn’t really usable as-is so developers used platform-specific dialects.



    As you mention yourself, later languages tried to integrate lessons learned from both C-related and Pascal-related languages, and they all derive from Algol anyway. (Pascal itself started off as suggested improvements to Algol X, which weren’t accepted into the language.) Languages where the family trees rejoin include Python and Icon.



    The reason Pascal is at the root of a larger family tree hasn’t been evoked yet.



    Pascal was designed by Niklaus Wirth, a researcher whose work focused on studying programming itself, including the use of programming languages as teaching tools and structuring tools (for structuring programmers’ minds); programming languages were nearly a side-effect of that research, and Wirth iterated on programming languages multiple times, which led to a profusion of languages and variants. Pascal was widely studied in academic circles, and others also pursued this type of research, leading to more descendants than Wirth himself could produce.



    C on the other hand was designed by Dennis Ritchie, as a tool to develop Unix. It wasn’t a research vehicle, and thus didn’t immediately produce the wealth of variants and descendants that Pascal did. It initially spread with its users, not with papers describing it, at least until The C Programming Language was published (six years after the creation of C).



    The programming languages genealogical tree project includes a nice diagram, and a large list of other resources on the topic.






    share|improve this answer























    • 11





      There's a nice quote about Wirth's intentions behind Pascal included on the Free Pascal Wiki: "Occasionally, it has been claimed that Pascal was designed as a language for teaching. Although this is correct, its use in teaching was not the only goal. In fact, I do not believe in using tools and formalisms in teaching that are inadequate for any practical task.".

      – TripeHound
      Apr 25 at 7:56






    • 6





      I think it is much more accurate to say that Algol was the root of these languages, not Pascal. Pascal was largely created to be a better Algol after the debacle of Algol68, and there were a wide variety of other spin-offs that were in widespread use at the time - JOVIAL being an obvious example.

      – Maury Markowitz
      Apr 25 at 10:33






    • 4





      @Maury basing the discussion on Algol makes it harder to create an artificial distinction between C and Pascal ;-).

      – Stephen Kitt
      Apr 25 at 13:14






    • 3





      @TripeHound the Lindsey paper covers the debacle in detail. To give you an idea, it introduction starts with “The World seems to have a rather negative perception of ALGOL 68. The language has been said to be “too big”, to be defined by an “unreadable Report” produced by a committee which “broke up in disarray”, to have no implementations, and to have no users.” (The paper does try to redeem the language.)

      – Stephen Kitt
      Apr 25 at 13:54






    • 4





      Algol68 was widely used as the canonical example of second-system-effect in the 1970s. It was in all the language design books of the era. It added all sorts of huge distributed costs to implement features that no one actually used, yet left many of the original implementation problems from earlier versions unsolved. But all my refs are dead tree, but looking in Google Books you can find many comments as to its sheer size and complexity.

      – Maury Markowitz
      Apr 25 at 16:35














    35














    35










    35










    Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest?




    I’m not sure modesty plays a part here; I don’t see any statement of value attached to the size of a language’s family.




    As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?




    Yes, he was correct, at least as phrased in the paper. Perceptions are perhaps biased because people tend to consider Pascal’s family tree v. C’s direct descendants (as the paper suggests itself); the main direct descendants of C by 1993 are listed in the paper:



    • Concurrent C

    • Objective C

    • C*

    • C++

    Expanding the search somewhat (see for example O’Reilly’s language poster and Éric Lévénez’ Computer Languages History), one could add other direct descendants which are arguably very similar to C, although I’m not sure Ritchie was considering them when writing the paper in question:



    • the C shell

    • AWK

    By 1993, Pascal had a similar number of direct descendants (identical in this analysis, but my counts are no doubt partial):



    • CLU

    • Mesa

    • Modula

    • Ada

    • Object Pascal

    • Concurrent Pascal

    but in my experience people tend to think of the Pascal “progeny” as including some indirect descendants, in particular the Modula and Oberon families (Modula, Modula-2, Modula-3, Oberon, Oberon-2), and variants of Pascal itself since “core” Pascal wasn’t really usable as-is so developers used platform-specific dialects.



    As you mention yourself, later languages tried to integrate lessons learned from both C-related and Pascal-related languages, and they all derive from Algol anyway. (Pascal itself started off as suggested improvements to Algol X, which weren’t accepted into the language.) Languages where the family trees rejoin include Python and Icon.



    The reason Pascal is at the root of a larger family tree hasn’t been evoked yet.



    Pascal was designed by Niklaus Wirth, a researcher whose work focused on studying programming itself, including the use of programming languages as teaching tools and structuring tools (for structuring programmers’ minds); programming languages were nearly a side-effect of that research, and Wirth iterated on programming languages multiple times, which led to a profusion of languages and variants. Pascal was widely studied in academic circles, and others also pursued this type of research, leading to more descendants than Wirth himself could produce.



    C on the other hand was designed by Dennis Ritchie, as a tool to develop Unix. It wasn’t a research vehicle, and thus didn’t immediately produce the wealth of variants and descendants that Pascal did. It initially spread with its users, not with papers describing it, at least until The C Programming Language was published (six years after the creation of C).



    The programming languages genealogical tree project includes a nice diagram, and a large list of other resources on the topic.






    share|improve this answer

















    Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest?




    I’m not sure modesty plays a part here; I don’t see any statement of value attached to the size of a language’s family.




    As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?




    Yes, he was correct, at least as phrased in the paper. Perceptions are perhaps biased because people tend to consider Pascal’s family tree v. C’s direct descendants (as the paper suggests itself); the main direct descendants of C by 1993 are listed in the paper:



    • Concurrent C

    • Objective C

    • C*

    • C++

    Expanding the search somewhat (see for example O’Reilly’s language poster and Éric Lévénez’ Computer Languages History), one could add other direct descendants which are arguably very similar to C, although I’m not sure Ritchie was considering them when writing the paper in question:



    • the C shell

    • AWK

    By 1993, Pascal had a similar number of direct descendants (identical in this analysis, but my counts are no doubt partial):



    • CLU

    • Mesa

    • Modula

    • Ada

    • Object Pascal

    • Concurrent Pascal

    but in my experience people tend to think of the Pascal “progeny” as including some indirect descendants, in particular the Modula and Oberon families (Modula, Modula-2, Modula-3, Oberon, Oberon-2), and variants of Pascal itself since “core” Pascal wasn’t really usable as-is so developers used platform-specific dialects.



    As you mention yourself, later languages tried to integrate lessons learned from both C-related and Pascal-related languages, and they all derive from Algol anyway. (Pascal itself started off as suggested improvements to Algol X, which weren’t accepted into the language.) Languages where the family trees rejoin include Python and Icon.



    The reason Pascal is at the root of a larger family tree hasn’t been evoked yet.



    Pascal was designed by Niklaus Wirth, a researcher whose work focused on studying programming itself, including the use of programming languages as teaching tools and structuring tools (for structuring programmers’ minds); programming languages were nearly a side-effect of that research, and Wirth iterated on programming languages multiple times, which led to a profusion of languages and variants. Pascal was widely studied in academic circles, and others also pursued this type of research, leading to more descendants than Wirth himself could produce.



    C on the other hand was designed by Dennis Ritchie, as a tool to develop Unix. It wasn’t a research vehicle, and thus didn’t immediately produce the wealth of variants and descendants that Pascal did. It initially spread with its users, not with papers describing it, at least until The C Programming Language was published (six years after the creation of C).



    The programming languages genealogical tree project includes a nice diagram, and a large list of other resources on the topic.







    share|improve this answer















    share|improve this answer




    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Apr 29 at 9:34

























    answered Apr 25 at 7:26









    Stephen KittStephen Kitt

    50.8k9 gold badges208 silver badges213 bronze badges




    50.8k9 gold badges208 silver badges213 bronze badges










    • 11





      There's a nice quote about Wirth's intentions behind Pascal included on the Free Pascal Wiki: "Occasionally, it has been claimed that Pascal was designed as a language for teaching. Although this is correct, its use in teaching was not the only goal. In fact, I do not believe in using tools and formalisms in teaching that are inadequate for any practical task.".

      – TripeHound
      Apr 25 at 7:56






    • 6





      I think it is much more accurate to say that Algol was the root of these languages, not Pascal. Pascal was largely created to be a better Algol after the debacle of Algol68, and there were a wide variety of other spin-offs that were in widespread use at the time - JOVIAL being an obvious example.

      – Maury Markowitz
      Apr 25 at 10:33






    • 4





      @Maury basing the discussion on Algol makes it harder to create an artificial distinction between C and Pascal ;-).

      – Stephen Kitt
      Apr 25 at 13:14






    • 3





      @TripeHound the Lindsey paper covers the debacle in detail. To give you an idea, it introduction starts with “The World seems to have a rather negative perception of ALGOL 68. The language has been said to be “too big”, to be defined by an “unreadable Report” produced by a committee which “broke up in disarray”, to have no implementations, and to have no users.” (The paper does try to redeem the language.)

      – Stephen Kitt
      Apr 25 at 13:54






    • 4





      Algol68 was widely used as the canonical example of second-system-effect in the 1970s. It was in all the language design books of the era. It added all sorts of huge distributed costs to implement features that no one actually used, yet left many of the original implementation problems from earlier versions unsolved. But all my refs are dead tree, but looking in Google Books you can find many comments as to its sheer size and complexity.

      – Maury Markowitz
      Apr 25 at 16:35













    • 11





      There's a nice quote about Wirth's intentions behind Pascal included on the Free Pascal Wiki: "Occasionally, it has been claimed that Pascal was designed as a language for teaching. Although this is correct, its use in teaching was not the only goal. In fact, I do not believe in using tools and formalisms in teaching that are inadequate for any practical task.".

      – TripeHound
      Apr 25 at 7:56






    • 6





      I think it is much more accurate to say that Algol was the root of these languages, not Pascal. Pascal was largely created to be a better Algol after the debacle of Algol68, and there were a wide variety of other spin-offs that were in widespread use at the time - JOVIAL being an obvious example.

      – Maury Markowitz
      Apr 25 at 10:33






    • 4





      @Maury basing the discussion on Algol makes it harder to create an artificial distinction between C and Pascal ;-).

      – Stephen Kitt
      Apr 25 at 13:14






    • 3





      @TripeHound the Lindsey paper covers the debacle in detail. To give you an idea, it introduction starts with “The World seems to have a rather negative perception of ALGOL 68. The language has been said to be “too big”, to be defined by an “unreadable Report” produced by a committee which “broke up in disarray”, to have no implementations, and to have no users.” (The paper does try to redeem the language.)

      – Stephen Kitt
      Apr 25 at 13:54






    • 4





      Algol68 was widely used as the canonical example of second-system-effect in the 1970s. It was in all the language design books of the era. It added all sorts of huge distributed costs to implement features that no one actually used, yet left many of the original implementation problems from earlier versions unsolved. But all my refs are dead tree, but looking in Google Books you can find many comments as to its sheer size and complexity.

      – Maury Markowitz
      Apr 25 at 16:35








    11




    11





    There's a nice quote about Wirth's intentions behind Pascal included on the Free Pascal Wiki: "Occasionally, it has been claimed that Pascal was designed as a language for teaching. Although this is correct, its use in teaching was not the only goal. In fact, I do not believe in using tools and formalisms in teaching that are inadequate for any practical task.".

    – TripeHound
    Apr 25 at 7:56





    There's a nice quote about Wirth's intentions behind Pascal included on the Free Pascal Wiki: "Occasionally, it has been claimed that Pascal was designed as a language for teaching. Although this is correct, its use in teaching was not the only goal. In fact, I do not believe in using tools and formalisms in teaching that are inadequate for any practical task.".

    – TripeHound
    Apr 25 at 7:56




    6




    6





    I think it is much more accurate to say that Algol was the root of these languages, not Pascal. Pascal was largely created to be a better Algol after the debacle of Algol68, and there were a wide variety of other spin-offs that were in widespread use at the time - JOVIAL being an obvious example.

    – Maury Markowitz
    Apr 25 at 10:33





    I think it is much more accurate to say that Algol was the root of these languages, not Pascal. Pascal was largely created to be a better Algol after the debacle of Algol68, and there were a wide variety of other spin-offs that were in widespread use at the time - JOVIAL being an obvious example.

    – Maury Markowitz
    Apr 25 at 10:33




    4




    4





    @Maury basing the discussion on Algol makes it harder to create an artificial distinction between C and Pascal ;-).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 25 at 13:14





    @Maury basing the discussion on Algol makes it harder to create an artificial distinction between C and Pascal ;-).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 25 at 13:14




    3




    3





    @TripeHound the Lindsey paper covers the debacle in detail. To give you an idea, it introduction starts with “The World seems to have a rather negative perception of ALGOL 68. The language has been said to be “too big”, to be defined by an “unreadable Report” produced by a committee which “broke up in disarray”, to have no implementations, and to have no users.” (The paper does try to redeem the language.)

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 25 at 13:54





    @TripeHound the Lindsey paper covers the debacle in detail. To give you an idea, it introduction starts with “The World seems to have a rather negative perception of ALGOL 68. The language has been said to be “too big”, to be defined by an “unreadable Report” produced by a committee which “broke up in disarray”, to have no implementations, and to have no users.” (The paper does try to redeem the language.)

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 25 at 13:54




    4




    4





    Algol68 was widely used as the canonical example of second-system-effect in the 1970s. It was in all the language design books of the era. It added all sorts of huge distributed costs to implement features that no one actually used, yet left many of the original implementation problems from earlier versions unsolved. But all my refs are dead tree, but looking in Google Books you can find many comments as to its sheer size and complexity.

    – Maury Markowitz
    Apr 25 at 16:35






    Algol68 was widely used as the canonical example of second-system-effect in the 1970s. It was in all the language design books of the era. It added all sorts of huge distributed costs to implement features that no one actually used, yet left many of the original implementation problems from earlier versions unsolved. But all my refs are dead tree, but looking in Google Books you can find many comments as to its sheer size and complexity.

    – Maury Markowitz
    Apr 25 at 16:35














    7


















    Short Answer: Yes




    Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?




    (*1)



    Well, it's not as easy as it sounds, as there is no birth certificate with all parents named. Both languages are Algol descendants. And throughout the 1980s Pascal was seen as the way to go - eventually all the way 'til Ada. So yes.




    We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C).




    Err. No. This falls short of development. To start with, Pascal in its core definition is a very simple language (much more simple than C) intended for teaching classes about basic programming all the way to compiler building. As a result, it was so simplified that serious work was almost impossible - an elegant language for ivory tower games. It lacked strings, usable file I/O and any form of modularisation.



    To make it usable for real world application, implementation had to enhance it substantially. And as usual, each and every developer had it his way. A UCSD Pascal program could not be compiled with Pascal/MT+ or Microsoft or Turbo Pascal, as all of them handled things differently.



    If at all, then there is a main line promoted by the two most successful products: UCSD Pascal and Turbo Pascal, with the later being an extension of some sort to UCSD Pascal. The huge success of TP did lead to many other moving toward compatible constructs.



    Heck, and then there are languages called Pascal which are derived from already different named languages, like Component Pascal evolved out of Oberon, which itself is a much improved Pascal child.



    Bottom line, the distinction when it is a 'new' language or not cannot be made by the name.



    Turbo Pascal and its incredible wide spread success (even I was tempted to use it) makes a good maker about how much more successful Pascal was in the 80s than C.




    Some languages may be descended from both.




    There is no 'pure' linage anywhere in the language world. To some degree all Algol based languages can as well be described as Pascal offsprings.



    It may even be necessary to look past the syntactic sugar of brackets vs. keywords to realize that Pascal is mainly data driven, as its big step from Algol was the way to define data structures. In so far Ada makes the most 'pure' child of Pascal anyway (*2). Nowadays a feature to be found across basically all general purpose languages.



    But let's try a list of close relatives openly carrying the family tradition:



    • Pascal

    • UCSD Pascal

    • Turbo Pascal

    • Pascal-SC

    • Oberon

    • Modula-2

    • Component-Pascal

    • Delphi

    • Concurrent Pascal

    • Pascal XL

    • Object Pascal

    • Pocket Studio

    • Vector Pascal (available for the PS2 !)

    • MS Pascal

    • Compaq Pascal (notable for type casting)

    Besides all the variation two lines are notable. One is the Oberon/Modula development driven by Wirth, the other is the Borland Turbo/Delphi line. Each creating their own family of Pascal offspring sharing features. The later creating a linage looking like this:



    • (Pascal)

    • (UCSD Pascal)

    • Turbo Pascal

    • Borland Pascal

    • Object Pascal

    • Delphi

    Well, and then there are all the languages with a less clear lineage all the way to JavaScript and Ada.




    (I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)




    As before, it depends on the way of counting. I'd say Pascal has still an advantage here :))



    *1 - It may be noteworthy that Brian Kernighan in contrast offered quite some public (and less than correct) criticism about Pascal.



    *2 - All the incompatible Pascal variations where the main reasons for the demand that Ada compilers could only be called that way if they adhere to a strict standard ... which eventually delayed Ada compilers way too long to really inherit the Pascal world, making room for C.






    share|improve this answer























    • 5





      IMO Turbo Pascal wasn't a commercial success because of Pascal itself, or the Borland extensions to it, but because of its IDE.

      – alephzero
      Apr 25 at 10:46






    • 6





      @alephzero "its IDE" sells it short. It was unbelievably fast. It allowed for frequent iteration in the code because of that speed. That was very much tied to the design of the language itself - namely, the fact that a single-pass compiler was trivial, and that you needed only a tiny amount of memory to store the whole thing. This also allowed for other huge features in the IDE - like the integrated debugger that just worked. Pascal had its shortcomings (most notably the lack of strings), but it was also very friendly, with a great community. People loved both Pascal and Turbo Pascal.

      – Luaan
      Apr 25 at 15:16






    • 2





      @alephzero Back then, the low cost was also a factor. It could easily cost several hundred dollars for other development environments that weren't nearly as friendly.

      – MetalMikester
      Apr 26 at 11:46






    • 1





      @Jasen It seams you are talking about a programmers PoV, which wasn't meant. It's about the compiler being more simple.Pascal follows a strict block concept with no exceptions, where C does restrict constructs to certain levels. For example in Pascal any block may contain a procedure, not possible in C, so the compiler needs to distinguish here, where Pascal just works ahead (Nested procedures are a nice way clarifying source code). Similar With can make sources way more readable than endless lines of nested structures needed in C. Ofc, this may depend on your style.

      – Raffzahn
      Apr 28 at 20:38






    • 3





      @Luaan: More interesting than the integrated debuggger that was added in 5.0 was the way that 2.x and 3.x would identify the locations were runtime errors occurred. In both CP/M and DOS, programs started at address 0x0100, so if the user indicated that an error occurred at address 0x1234, the IDE would set the limit to 0x1134 bytes, disable compiler output, and run the compiler. The part of the program that was being scanned when the compiler hits its limit would be the location of the error.

      – supercat
      Apr 29 at 15:38
















    7


















    Short Answer: Yes




    Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?




    (*1)



    Well, it's not as easy as it sounds, as there is no birth certificate with all parents named. Both languages are Algol descendants. And throughout the 1980s Pascal was seen as the way to go - eventually all the way 'til Ada. So yes.




    We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C).




    Err. No. This falls short of development. To start with, Pascal in its core definition is a very simple language (much more simple than C) intended for teaching classes about basic programming all the way to compiler building. As a result, it was so simplified that serious work was almost impossible - an elegant language for ivory tower games. It lacked strings, usable file I/O and any form of modularisation.



    To make it usable for real world application, implementation had to enhance it substantially. And as usual, each and every developer had it his way. A UCSD Pascal program could not be compiled with Pascal/MT+ or Microsoft or Turbo Pascal, as all of them handled things differently.



    If at all, then there is a main line promoted by the two most successful products: UCSD Pascal and Turbo Pascal, with the later being an extension of some sort to UCSD Pascal. The huge success of TP did lead to many other moving toward compatible constructs.



    Heck, and then there are languages called Pascal which are derived from already different named languages, like Component Pascal evolved out of Oberon, which itself is a much improved Pascal child.



    Bottom line, the distinction when it is a 'new' language or not cannot be made by the name.



    Turbo Pascal and its incredible wide spread success (even I was tempted to use it) makes a good maker about how much more successful Pascal was in the 80s than C.




    Some languages may be descended from both.




    There is no 'pure' linage anywhere in the language world. To some degree all Algol based languages can as well be described as Pascal offsprings.



    It may even be necessary to look past the syntactic sugar of brackets vs. keywords to realize that Pascal is mainly data driven, as its big step from Algol was the way to define data structures. In so far Ada makes the most 'pure' child of Pascal anyway (*2). Nowadays a feature to be found across basically all general purpose languages.



    But let's try a list of close relatives openly carrying the family tradition:



    • Pascal

    • UCSD Pascal

    • Turbo Pascal

    • Pascal-SC

    • Oberon

    • Modula-2

    • Component-Pascal

    • Delphi

    • Concurrent Pascal

    • Pascal XL

    • Object Pascal

    • Pocket Studio

    • Vector Pascal (available for the PS2 !)

    • MS Pascal

    • Compaq Pascal (notable for type casting)

    Besides all the variation two lines are notable. One is the Oberon/Modula development driven by Wirth, the other is the Borland Turbo/Delphi line. Each creating their own family of Pascal offspring sharing features. The later creating a linage looking like this:



    • (Pascal)

    • (UCSD Pascal)

    • Turbo Pascal

    • Borland Pascal

    • Object Pascal

    • Delphi

    Well, and then there are all the languages with a less clear lineage all the way to JavaScript and Ada.




    (I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)




    As before, it depends on the way of counting. I'd say Pascal has still an advantage here :))



    *1 - It may be noteworthy that Brian Kernighan in contrast offered quite some public (and less than correct) criticism about Pascal.



    *2 - All the incompatible Pascal variations where the main reasons for the demand that Ada compilers could only be called that way if they adhere to a strict standard ... which eventually delayed Ada compilers way too long to really inherit the Pascal world, making room for C.






    share|improve this answer























    • 5





      IMO Turbo Pascal wasn't a commercial success because of Pascal itself, or the Borland extensions to it, but because of its IDE.

      – alephzero
      Apr 25 at 10:46






    • 6





      @alephzero "its IDE" sells it short. It was unbelievably fast. It allowed for frequent iteration in the code because of that speed. That was very much tied to the design of the language itself - namely, the fact that a single-pass compiler was trivial, and that you needed only a tiny amount of memory to store the whole thing. This also allowed for other huge features in the IDE - like the integrated debugger that just worked. Pascal had its shortcomings (most notably the lack of strings), but it was also very friendly, with a great community. People loved both Pascal and Turbo Pascal.

      – Luaan
      Apr 25 at 15:16






    • 2





      @alephzero Back then, the low cost was also a factor. It could easily cost several hundred dollars for other development environments that weren't nearly as friendly.

      – MetalMikester
      Apr 26 at 11:46






    • 1





      @Jasen It seams you are talking about a programmers PoV, which wasn't meant. It's about the compiler being more simple.Pascal follows a strict block concept with no exceptions, where C does restrict constructs to certain levels. For example in Pascal any block may contain a procedure, not possible in C, so the compiler needs to distinguish here, where Pascal just works ahead (Nested procedures are a nice way clarifying source code). Similar With can make sources way more readable than endless lines of nested structures needed in C. Ofc, this may depend on your style.

      – Raffzahn
      Apr 28 at 20:38






    • 3





      @Luaan: More interesting than the integrated debuggger that was added in 5.0 was the way that 2.x and 3.x would identify the locations were runtime errors occurred. In both CP/M and DOS, programs started at address 0x0100, so if the user indicated that an error occurred at address 0x1234, the IDE would set the limit to 0x1134 bytes, disable compiler output, and run the compiler. The part of the program that was being scanned when the compiler hits its limit would be the location of the error.

      – supercat
      Apr 29 at 15:38














    7














    7










    7









    Short Answer: Yes




    Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?




    (*1)



    Well, it's not as easy as it sounds, as there is no birth certificate with all parents named. Both languages are Algol descendants. And throughout the 1980s Pascal was seen as the way to go - eventually all the way 'til Ada. So yes.




    We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C).




    Err. No. This falls short of development. To start with, Pascal in its core definition is a very simple language (much more simple than C) intended for teaching classes about basic programming all the way to compiler building. As a result, it was so simplified that serious work was almost impossible - an elegant language for ivory tower games. It lacked strings, usable file I/O and any form of modularisation.



    To make it usable for real world application, implementation had to enhance it substantially. And as usual, each and every developer had it his way. A UCSD Pascal program could not be compiled with Pascal/MT+ or Microsoft or Turbo Pascal, as all of them handled things differently.



    If at all, then there is a main line promoted by the two most successful products: UCSD Pascal and Turbo Pascal, with the later being an extension of some sort to UCSD Pascal. The huge success of TP did lead to many other moving toward compatible constructs.



    Heck, and then there are languages called Pascal which are derived from already different named languages, like Component Pascal evolved out of Oberon, which itself is a much improved Pascal child.



    Bottom line, the distinction when it is a 'new' language or not cannot be made by the name.



    Turbo Pascal and its incredible wide spread success (even I was tempted to use it) makes a good maker about how much more successful Pascal was in the 80s than C.




    Some languages may be descended from both.




    There is no 'pure' linage anywhere in the language world. To some degree all Algol based languages can as well be described as Pascal offsprings.



    It may even be necessary to look past the syntactic sugar of brackets vs. keywords to realize that Pascal is mainly data driven, as its big step from Algol was the way to define data structures. In so far Ada makes the most 'pure' child of Pascal anyway (*2). Nowadays a feature to be found across basically all general purpose languages.



    But let's try a list of close relatives openly carrying the family tradition:



    • Pascal

    • UCSD Pascal

    • Turbo Pascal

    • Pascal-SC

    • Oberon

    • Modula-2

    • Component-Pascal

    • Delphi

    • Concurrent Pascal

    • Pascal XL

    • Object Pascal

    • Pocket Studio

    • Vector Pascal (available for the PS2 !)

    • MS Pascal

    • Compaq Pascal (notable for type casting)

    Besides all the variation two lines are notable. One is the Oberon/Modula development driven by Wirth, the other is the Borland Turbo/Delphi line. Each creating their own family of Pascal offspring sharing features. The later creating a linage looking like this:



    • (Pascal)

    • (UCSD Pascal)

    • Turbo Pascal

    • Borland Pascal

    • Object Pascal

    • Delphi

    Well, and then there are all the languages with a less clear lineage all the way to JavaScript and Ada.




    (I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)




    As before, it depends on the way of counting. I'd say Pascal has still an advantage here :))



    *1 - It may be noteworthy that Brian Kernighan in contrast offered quite some public (and less than correct) criticism about Pascal.



    *2 - All the incompatible Pascal variations where the main reasons for the demand that Ada compilers could only be called that way if they adhere to a strict standard ... which eventually delayed Ada compilers way too long to really inherit the Pascal world, making room for C.






    share|improve this answer
















    Short Answer: Yes




    Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?




    (*1)



    Well, it's not as easy as it sounds, as there is no birth certificate with all parents named. Both languages are Algol descendants. And throughout the 1980s Pascal was seen as the way to go - eventually all the way 'til Ada. So yes.




    We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C).




    Err. No. This falls short of development. To start with, Pascal in its core definition is a very simple language (much more simple than C) intended for teaching classes about basic programming all the way to compiler building. As a result, it was so simplified that serious work was almost impossible - an elegant language for ivory tower games. It lacked strings, usable file I/O and any form of modularisation.



    To make it usable for real world application, implementation had to enhance it substantially. And as usual, each and every developer had it his way. A UCSD Pascal program could not be compiled with Pascal/MT+ or Microsoft or Turbo Pascal, as all of them handled things differently.



    If at all, then there is a main line promoted by the two most successful products: UCSD Pascal and Turbo Pascal, with the later being an extension of some sort to UCSD Pascal. The huge success of TP did lead to many other moving toward compatible constructs.



    Heck, and then there are languages called Pascal which are derived from already different named languages, like Component Pascal evolved out of Oberon, which itself is a much improved Pascal child.



    Bottom line, the distinction when it is a 'new' language or not cannot be made by the name.



    Turbo Pascal and its incredible wide spread success (even I was tempted to use it) makes a good maker about how much more successful Pascal was in the 80s than C.




    Some languages may be descended from both.




    There is no 'pure' linage anywhere in the language world. To some degree all Algol based languages can as well be described as Pascal offsprings.



    It may even be necessary to look past the syntactic sugar of brackets vs. keywords to realize that Pascal is mainly data driven, as its big step from Algol was the way to define data structures. In so far Ada makes the most 'pure' child of Pascal anyway (*2). Nowadays a feature to be found across basically all general purpose languages.



    But let's try a list of close relatives openly carrying the family tradition:



    • Pascal

    • UCSD Pascal

    • Turbo Pascal

    • Pascal-SC

    • Oberon

    • Modula-2

    • Component-Pascal

    • Delphi

    • Concurrent Pascal

    • Pascal XL

    • Object Pascal

    • Pocket Studio

    • Vector Pascal (available for the PS2 !)

    • MS Pascal

    • Compaq Pascal (notable for type casting)

    Besides all the variation two lines are notable. One is the Oberon/Modula development driven by Wirth, the other is the Borland Turbo/Delphi line. Each creating their own family of Pascal offspring sharing features. The later creating a linage looking like this:



    • (Pascal)

    • (UCSD Pascal)

    • Turbo Pascal

    • Borland Pascal

    • Object Pascal

    • Delphi

    Well, and then there are all the languages with a less clear lineage all the way to JavaScript and Ada.




    (I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)




    As before, it depends on the way of counting. I'd say Pascal has still an advantage here :))



    *1 - It may be noteworthy that Brian Kernighan in contrast offered quite some public (and less than correct) criticism about Pascal.



    *2 - All the incompatible Pascal variations where the main reasons for the demand that Ada compilers could only be called that way if they adhere to a strict standard ... which eventually delayed Ada compilers way too long to really inherit the Pascal world, making room for C.







    share|improve this answer















    share|improve this answer




    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Apr 25 at 9:47









    LangLangC

    9111 gold badge3 silver badges15 bronze badges




    9111 gold badge3 silver badges15 bronze badges










    answered Apr 25 at 6:52









    RaffzahnRaffzahn

    71.8k8 gold badges178 silver badges298 bronze badges




    71.8k8 gold badges178 silver badges298 bronze badges










    • 5





      IMO Turbo Pascal wasn't a commercial success because of Pascal itself, or the Borland extensions to it, but because of its IDE.

      – alephzero
      Apr 25 at 10:46






    • 6





      @alephzero "its IDE" sells it short. It was unbelievably fast. It allowed for frequent iteration in the code because of that speed. That was very much tied to the design of the language itself - namely, the fact that a single-pass compiler was trivial, and that you needed only a tiny amount of memory to store the whole thing. This also allowed for other huge features in the IDE - like the integrated debugger that just worked. Pascal had its shortcomings (most notably the lack of strings), but it was also very friendly, with a great community. People loved both Pascal and Turbo Pascal.

      – Luaan
      Apr 25 at 15:16






    • 2





      @alephzero Back then, the low cost was also a factor. It could easily cost several hundred dollars for other development environments that weren't nearly as friendly.

      – MetalMikester
      Apr 26 at 11:46






    • 1





      @Jasen It seams you are talking about a programmers PoV, which wasn't meant. It's about the compiler being more simple.Pascal follows a strict block concept with no exceptions, where C does restrict constructs to certain levels. For example in Pascal any block may contain a procedure, not possible in C, so the compiler needs to distinguish here, where Pascal just works ahead (Nested procedures are a nice way clarifying source code). Similar With can make sources way more readable than endless lines of nested structures needed in C. Ofc, this may depend on your style.

      – Raffzahn
      Apr 28 at 20:38






    • 3





      @Luaan: More interesting than the integrated debuggger that was added in 5.0 was the way that 2.x and 3.x would identify the locations were runtime errors occurred. In both CP/M and DOS, programs started at address 0x0100, so if the user indicated that an error occurred at address 0x1234, the IDE would set the limit to 0x1134 bytes, disable compiler output, and run the compiler. The part of the program that was being scanned when the compiler hits its limit would be the location of the error.

      – supercat
      Apr 29 at 15:38













    • 5





      IMO Turbo Pascal wasn't a commercial success because of Pascal itself, or the Borland extensions to it, but because of its IDE.

      – alephzero
      Apr 25 at 10:46






    • 6





      @alephzero "its IDE" sells it short. It was unbelievably fast. It allowed for frequent iteration in the code because of that speed. That was very much tied to the design of the language itself - namely, the fact that a single-pass compiler was trivial, and that you needed only a tiny amount of memory to store the whole thing. This also allowed for other huge features in the IDE - like the integrated debugger that just worked. Pascal had its shortcomings (most notably the lack of strings), but it was also very friendly, with a great community. People loved both Pascal and Turbo Pascal.

      – Luaan
      Apr 25 at 15:16






    • 2





      @alephzero Back then, the low cost was also a factor. It could easily cost several hundred dollars for other development environments that weren't nearly as friendly.

      – MetalMikester
      Apr 26 at 11:46






    • 1





      @Jasen It seams you are talking about a programmers PoV, which wasn't meant. It's about the compiler being more simple.Pascal follows a strict block concept with no exceptions, where C does restrict constructs to certain levels. For example in Pascal any block may contain a procedure, not possible in C, so the compiler needs to distinguish here, where Pascal just works ahead (Nested procedures are a nice way clarifying source code). Similar With can make sources way more readable than endless lines of nested structures needed in C. Ofc, this may depend on your style.

      – Raffzahn
      Apr 28 at 20:38






    • 3





      @Luaan: More interesting than the integrated debuggger that was added in 5.0 was the way that 2.x and 3.x would identify the locations were runtime errors occurred. In both CP/M and DOS, programs started at address 0x0100, so if the user indicated that an error occurred at address 0x1234, the IDE would set the limit to 0x1134 bytes, disable compiler output, and run the compiler. The part of the program that was being scanned when the compiler hits its limit would be the location of the error.

      – supercat
      Apr 29 at 15:38








    5




    5





    IMO Turbo Pascal wasn't a commercial success because of Pascal itself, or the Borland extensions to it, but because of its IDE.

    – alephzero
    Apr 25 at 10:46





    IMO Turbo Pascal wasn't a commercial success because of Pascal itself, or the Borland extensions to it, but because of its IDE.

    – alephzero
    Apr 25 at 10:46




    6




    6





    @alephzero "its IDE" sells it short. It was unbelievably fast. It allowed for frequent iteration in the code because of that speed. That was very much tied to the design of the language itself - namely, the fact that a single-pass compiler was trivial, and that you needed only a tiny amount of memory to store the whole thing. This also allowed for other huge features in the IDE - like the integrated debugger that just worked. Pascal had its shortcomings (most notably the lack of strings), but it was also very friendly, with a great community. People loved both Pascal and Turbo Pascal.

    – Luaan
    Apr 25 at 15:16





    @alephzero "its IDE" sells it short. It was unbelievably fast. It allowed for frequent iteration in the code because of that speed. That was very much tied to the design of the language itself - namely, the fact that a single-pass compiler was trivial, and that you needed only a tiny amount of memory to store the whole thing. This also allowed for other huge features in the IDE - like the integrated debugger that just worked. Pascal had its shortcomings (most notably the lack of strings), but it was also very friendly, with a great community. People loved both Pascal and Turbo Pascal.

    – Luaan
    Apr 25 at 15:16




    2




    2





    @alephzero Back then, the low cost was also a factor. It could easily cost several hundred dollars for other development environments that weren't nearly as friendly.

    – MetalMikester
    Apr 26 at 11:46





    @alephzero Back then, the low cost was also a factor. It could easily cost several hundred dollars for other development environments that weren't nearly as friendly.

    – MetalMikester
    Apr 26 at 11:46




    1




    1





    @Jasen It seams you are talking about a programmers PoV, which wasn't meant. It's about the compiler being more simple.Pascal follows a strict block concept with no exceptions, where C does restrict constructs to certain levels. For example in Pascal any block may contain a procedure, not possible in C, so the compiler needs to distinguish here, where Pascal just works ahead (Nested procedures are a nice way clarifying source code). Similar With can make sources way more readable than endless lines of nested structures needed in C. Ofc, this may depend on your style.

    – Raffzahn
    Apr 28 at 20:38





    @Jasen It seams you are talking about a programmers PoV, which wasn't meant. It's about the compiler being more simple.Pascal follows a strict block concept with no exceptions, where C does restrict constructs to certain levels. For example in Pascal any block may contain a procedure, not possible in C, so the compiler needs to distinguish here, where Pascal just works ahead (Nested procedures are a nice way clarifying source code). Similar With can make sources way more readable than endless lines of nested structures needed in C. Ofc, this may depend on your style.

    – Raffzahn
    Apr 28 at 20:38




    3




    3





    @Luaan: More interesting than the integrated debuggger that was added in 5.0 was the way that 2.x and 3.x would identify the locations were runtime errors occurred. In both CP/M and DOS, programs started at address 0x0100, so if the user indicated that an error occurred at address 0x1234, the IDE would set the limit to 0x1134 bytes, disable compiler output, and run the compiler. The part of the program that was being scanned when the compiler hits its limit would be the location of the error.

    – supercat
    Apr 29 at 15:38






    @Luaan: More interesting than the integrated debuggger that was added in 5.0 was the way that 2.x and 3.x would identify the locations were runtime errors occurred. In both CP/M and DOS, programs started at address 0x0100, so if the user indicated that an error occurred at address 0x1234, the IDE would set the limit to 0x1134 bytes, disable compiler output, and run the compiler. The part of the program that was being scanned when the compiler hits its limit would be the location of the error.

    – supercat
    Apr 29 at 15:38












    6


















    At the time he wrote that, it would have been literally true.
    Concurrent Pascal, *Pascal, SUE (which I'd like to know more
    about), Modula (not Modula-2), Modula-2, Mesa, Modula-3,
    Euclid, Concurrent Euclid, Turing, Turing+, the Gypsy
    specification language, LIS (another one I'd like to know
    more about), and arguably CLU. Those are just ones I can
    call to mind.






    share|improve this answer






























      6


















      At the time he wrote that, it would have been literally true.
      Concurrent Pascal, *Pascal, SUE (which I'd like to know more
      about), Modula (not Modula-2), Modula-2, Mesa, Modula-3,
      Euclid, Concurrent Euclid, Turing, Turing+, the Gypsy
      specification language, LIS (another one I'd like to know
      more about), and arguably CLU. Those are just ones I can
      call to mind.






      share|improve this answer




























        6














        6










        6









        At the time he wrote that, it would have been literally true.
        Concurrent Pascal, *Pascal, SUE (which I'd like to know more
        about), Modula (not Modula-2), Modula-2, Mesa, Modula-3,
        Euclid, Concurrent Euclid, Turing, Turing+, the Gypsy
        specification language, LIS (another one I'd like to know
        more about), and arguably CLU. Those are just ones I can
        call to mind.






        share|improve this answer














        At the time he wrote that, it would have been literally true.
        Concurrent Pascal, *Pascal, SUE (which I'd like to know more
        about), Modula (not Modula-2), Modula-2, Mesa, Modula-3,
        Euclid, Concurrent Euclid, Turing, Turing+, the Gypsy
        specification language, LIS (another one I'd like to know
        more about), and arguably CLU. Those are just ones I can
        call to mind.







        share|improve this answer













        share|improve this answer




        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Apr 25 at 5:19









        raokraok

        3461 silver badge2 bronze badges




        3461 silver badge2 bronze badges































            draft saved

            draft discarded















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f10822%2fwas-dennis-ritchie-being-too-modest-in-this-quote-about-c-and-pascal%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown









            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

            Image
            Fering ArtiikelDrawiidisk Spriiken SölringÖömrangFeringHalunderHalifreeskMooringWiringhiirderKarhiirderGooshiirderDrawiidisk SpriikTamil NaduIndienSri Lanka (function()var node=document.getElementById("mw-dismissablenotice-anonplace");if(node)node.outerHTML="u003Cdiv class="mw-dismissable-notice"u003Eu003Cdiv class="mw-dismissable-notice-close"u003E[u003Ca tabindex="0" role="button"u003EFersteegu003C/au003E]u003C/divu003Eu003Cdiv class="mw-dismissable-notice-body"u003Eu003Cdiv id="localNotice" lang="frr" dir="ltr"u003Eu003Cdiv id="sitenotice"u003Enu003Ccenteru003Enu003Ctable class="rahmenfarbe4" style="border-style: solid; border-width: thin; width: 70%;"u003Ennu003Ctbodyu003Eu003Ctru003Enu003Ctd style="text-align:center;"u003Eu003Ca href="/wiki/Datei:Nordfriesischeflagge.svg" class="image"u003Eu003Cimg alt="Nordfriesische
            Read more

            Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

            Image
            Why didn't the Universal Translator speak whale? What is /dev/null and why can't I use hx on it? The work of mathematicians outside their professional environment Does the DOJ's declining to investigate the Trump-Zelensky call ruin the basis for impeachment? Are there any tricks to pushing a grand piano? Maintaining distance Does it require less energy to reach the Sun from Pluto's orbit than from Earth's orbit? Object Oriented Design: Where to place behavior that pertains to more than one type of object? Choice of solvent during thin layer chromatography How to catch creatures that can predict the next few minutes? Use floats or doubles when writing mobile games How come the Russian cognate for the Czech word "čerstvý" (fresh) means entirely the opposite thing (stale)? What are the limits on an impeached and not convicted president? How to calculate Limit of this sequence Bash-script as linux-service won't run, but executed
            Read more

            Training a classifier when some of the features are unknownWhy does Gradient Boosting regression predict negative values when there are no negative y-values in my training set?How to improve an existing (trained) classifier?What is effect when I set up some self defined predisctor variables?Why Matlab neural network classification returns decimal values on prediction dataset?Fitting and transforming text data in training, testing, and validation setsHow to quantify the performance of the classifier (multi-class SVM) using the test data?How do I control for some patients providing multiple samples in my training data?Training and Test setTraining a convolutional neural network for image denoising in MatlabShouldn't an autoencoder with #(neurons in hidden layer) = #(neurons in input layer) be “perfect”?

            Image
            Extremely casual way to make requests to very close friends Why are Gatwick's runways too close together? AsyncDictionary - Can you break thread safety? Different inverter (logic gate) symbols Y2K... in 2019? Withdrew when Jimmy met up with Heath Christian apologetics regarding the killing of innocent children during the Genesis flood How does 'AND' distribute over 'OR' (Set Theory)? Ex-contractor published company source code and secrets online how to differentiate when a child lwc component is called twice in parent component? Infeasibility in mathematical optimization models How is this kind of structure made? Plausibility of Ice Eaters in the Arctic Tikzpicture - finish drawing a curved line for a cake slice Why is transplanting a specific intact brain impossible if it is generally possible? How to create all combinations from a nested list while preserving the structure using R? What should I call bands of armed men in Medieval T
            Read more