INTL 3:770/1 3:770/3   
   REPLYADDR Pancho.Jones@proton.me   
   REPLYTO 3:770/3.0 UUCP   
   MSGID:  583bd781   
   REPLY: <20231231095927.c4d417f2e988f4ef3c164032@eircom.net> 438341f4   
   PID: SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
   On 31/12/2023 09:59, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:   
   > On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 08:28:28 +0000   
   > The Natural Philosopher  wrote:   
   >   
   >> The problem was really that C was *so* good, that people did start to   
   >> write hugely complex stuff in it, and using people who wouldn't know a   
   >> register or a stack pointer if it poked them in the eye or how DMA   
   >> worked...to write them.   
   >   
   > 	There were two other factors in the rise of C. You could get a C   
   > compiler for just about anything, importantly there were several for CP/M.   
   > There weren't many decent languages that were that widely available. Also   
   > almost every university CS course used it from very early on (Cambridge   
   > being the notable exception because Martin Richards was there) so from   
   > around 1980 there were a *lot* of people trained in C.   
   >   
      
   I thought university CS courses of the era avoided C and preferred more   
   academic, pedagogical languages: Pascal, Prolog, Smalltalk, ML, Lisp.   
      
   The benefit of C was that it was closer to assembler and suited the low   
   power CPUs of the time, when programmers needed to think close to the   
   metal in order to achieve acceptable performance.   
      
   On the job, C was easy to learn and the 'C Programming Language' was a   
   very good manual.   
      
   I was taught both OO and functional programming before I ever met C at   
   work, which may be why I was positive about OO-Design, C++ when it came   
   along.   
      
   To this day I still prefer my brackets (C, C++, C#) in Pascal style   
   rather than K&R, which I begrudgingly use with Java.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)   
   SEEN-BY: 15/0 90/1 105/81 106/201 128/260 129/305 135/225 153/757   
   SEEN-BY: 153/7715 218/700 840 220/70 221/1 6 242 360 226/17 30 100   
   SEEN-BY: 227/114 229/110 112 113 200 206 307 317 400 426 428 452 470   
   SEEN-BY: 229/550 616 664 700 230/0 266/512 267/800 280/5003 282/1038   
   SEEN-BY: 291/111 292/854 8125 301/1 310/31 320/219 322/757 335/364   
   SEEN-BY: 341/66 342/200 396/45 410/9 423/81 460/58 633/280 712/848   
   SEEN-BY: 770/1 3 100 330 340 772/210 220 230 5020/400 5058/104 5075/35   
   PATH: 770/3 1 218/840 221/6 1 292/854 229/426