XPost: alt.folklore.computers   
   From: Peter@Iron-Spring.com   
      
   On 1/3/26 01:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:   
   > "The statement "Pascal has no I/O" originates from   
   > Brian Kernighan’s 1981 essay, "Why Pascal is Not My Favorite Programming   
   > Language".   
   >   
   > Kernighan argued that the original 1970 definition of Pascal was   
   > severely limited for systems programming because:   
   >   
   >      No Low-Level Access: The language lacked a way to override its   
   > strict type system, making it impossible to write its own I/O systems or   
   > memory allocators *within the language itself*.   
   >   
   >      Fixed Array Sizes: Because array size was part of the type, a   
   > function could not be written to handle strings or arrays of different   
   > lengths, complicating general-purpose file I/O.   
   >   
   >      Lack of Portability: Standard Pascal’s I/O was considered   
   > "primitive," and any real-world use required implementation-specific   
   > extensions that broke portability between compilers."   
   >   
      
   Actually, many systems programming languages have no I/O, the idea being   
   that non-OS programs call the OS to do the I/O, and the OS interacts   
   directly with the hardware.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)