XPost: alt.folklore.computers   
   From: Peter@Iron-Spring.com   
      
   On 1/5/26 21:18, c186282 wrote:   
   > On 1/5/26 22:37, Peter Flass wrote:   
   >> On 1/5/26 17:57, c186282 wrote:   
   >>> On 1/5/26 13:49, John Ames wrote:   
   >>>> On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 08:31:33 +0000   
   >>>> 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:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Yeah, that was it - not *no* I/O in the sense that was true of Algol,   
   >>>> but weird and constrained in ways that betray its origins as a teaching   
   >>>> language. Mainly, files are assumed to be of a uniform structure; you   
   >>>> can have a FILE OF CHAR or a FILE OF INTEGER, but not a file containing   
   >>>> both strings and integers. If you want to do *that,* you're supposed to   
   >>>> make a struct and have a FILE OF that, but this too has to be the same   
   >>>> across the whole thing. Files of mixed or variable structure? Who uses   
   >>>> *those!?*   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Like many of Wirth's design choices, it sounds simple on paper but is   
   >>>> unnecessarily confining in the Real World - and, as Kernighan points   
   >>>> out, there were no "escape hatches" for extending the language from   
   >>>> within, leading to a bunch of proprietary and mutually-incompatible   
   >>>> variants. Obviously, it's been decades and the landscape has changed   
   >>>> substantially, but it really was dunderheaded at the time.   
   >>>   
   >>>    Wirth was an 'academic' - and Pascal/M2/M3 kind   
   >>>    of reflect that.   
   >>>   
   >>>    However it WAS easy to extend the language - add in   
   >>>    those Real World necessities. By the time Turbo Pascal   
   >>>    hit the scene there really wasn't anything you could   
   >>>    not do with Pascal.   
   >>>   
   >>>    And I still write in Pascal fairly often - like   
   >>>    it better than 'C'.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> I'm not sure to what extent there was an attempt early on to   
   >> standardize the extensions, but this would have helped adoption of the   
   >> language immensely.   
   >   
   >    Turbo Pascal kinda set the Better Standard LONG back.   
   >   
   >    For Linux (and Win), this continues with FPC.   
   >   
   >    GNU Pascal also supports inline ASM, but in a   
   >    slightly different format.   
   >   
   >    Anyway, you COULD write an OS in Pascal. Maybe   
   >    someone has, dunno.   
   >   
      
   I think Brinch-Hansen used Modula-2.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)