INTL 3:770/1 3:770/3   
   REPLYADDR Pancho.Jones@proton.me   
   REPLYTO 3:770/3.0 UUCP   
   MSGID:  bbf4fe26   
   REPLY:  f8074617   
   PID: SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
   On 31/12/2023 12:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:   
   > On 31/12/2023 11:35, Pancho wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   > Compscis had their head in the clouds and their noses stuck up their   
   > arses. We learnt how to code without any 'courses'   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   > all that   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > I think I do too.   
   >   
   > Did pascal have curlies?   
   >   
      
   TimS used the indentation style name, "Whitesmith", which I'd never   
   heard before, so I looked it up. When I look back to then, compared to   
   now, the biggest difference for me is that I can just look stuff up. I   
   had no idea what Whitesmith meant, but a minute later I know. Back then,   
   I would have to spend ages trying to find out, scour multiple books, or   
   live in ignorance.   
      
   Apparently, my “Pascal Style” is called Allman.   
      
      
      
   Pascal didn't have curlies, they had begin/end, but when I started   
   programming C I indented my curlies the same as begin/end in Pascal   
      
   > I had a friend with an Apple II and he said he couldnt code in C because   
   > it had no curlies...on the kee bored   
   >   
      
   Apple is Apple, I've never used any of their stuff.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/19 15/0 16/0 19/10 37 80/1 90/1 105/81 106/201 123/130   
   SEEN-BY: 128/260 129/305 135/225 142/104 153/757 7715 203/0 218/700   
   SEEN-BY: 218/840 220/70 221/1 6 242 360 226/17 30 100 227/114 229/110   
   SEEN-BY: 229/112 113 200 206 307 317 400 426 428 452 470 550 616 664   
   SEEN-BY: 229/700 230/0 240/5832 266/512 267/800 280/5003 282/1038   
   SEEN-BY: 291/111 292/854 301/1 310/31 320/119 219 319 2119 322/0 757   
   SEEN-BY: 325/304 335/364 341/66 342/200 396/45 423/81 460/58 633/280   
   SEEN-BY: 712/848 770/1 3 100 330 340 772/210 220 230 5020/400 5053/58   
   SEEN-BY: 5058/104 5075/35   
   PATH: 770/3 1 218/840 221/6 1 320/219 229/426