retard wrote:
Yes, Pascal WAS a teaching language. However, probably there are no
colleges using it these days. Teachers have adopted more recent languages
during the last 20 years and it makes no sense to compare anything to
Pascal anymore.
I meant it as an example of a language that was designed for a purpose other
than what D was designed for. Sheesh!
TP and Delphi both brought Pascal back to mainstream.
Delphi came along long after TP, and while it is a derivative of Pascal, it is
not Pascal.
I guess it's terribly hard to get rid of the 'ivory tower' stigma.
I didn't give it a stigma. I said it was designed as a research language - and
it was. Their own designers said it was.
What do you think is missing?
I did not say anything was missing, nor did I criticize Haskell. I made a
statement of fact.
Netscape Navigator is dead. Vbscript is dead. Nowadays the Web 2.0 world
is using IE 8, Firefox 3.6, Chrome 6, and many other standard compliant
browsers. The platforms of choice today are Flash 10, Silverlight, Java
6, and Javascript. Everything else is obsolete.
True, but irrelevant. I mentioned these as examples whose goal was to push a
related product. Want some more? PALASM, given away for free in order to get
people to use Programmable Logic Arrays, and it was highly successful at doing that.
Basic is famous in that its charter specifically was for
non-programmers. Cobol was designed for managers to be able to
understand the code, not to write it (a slightly different aim).
Both Basic and Cobol are dead outside some legacy projects.
True, but irrelevant to my point. I see that nobody understood my point at all.
The inventors of C just didn't realize it's a single paradigm language.
Meaning it was not deliberately designed as a single paradigm language. The
topic I'm addressing is design goals for a language - not what the language
became, evolved into, or whether it is in wide use or dead.
