Jan, Scruffies miss the point. Languages are designed each within their own specific context of use. Pascal was specifically designed by Niklaus Wirth as a pedagogical language, C designed as a language to be used symbiotically with the implementation and use of Unix. Pascal was mean't primarily to allow students to explore the then hot paradigm of "structured programming", and C was designed for "scruffies".
On your second point, it's true, some people DO enjoy writing and puzzling out the meaning of cryptic code. I recall an ancient series of running articles in CACM challenging readers to discover what a particularly cryptic piece of code does. As someone who teaches algorithms, I still enjoy discussing the meaning and validation of some well structured but complex algorithm, something like a Dijkstra's shortest path algorithm or a triangulation algorithm. But there is also the satisfaction of designing a textually "beautiful" algorithm that not only is easy to follow but looks organizationally pretty on a page (especially with the multi-colors used in most modern program editors). Larry Latour >From http://www.swissdelphicenter.ch/en/niklauswirth.php Pascal, 1968-1972 Freed from the constraining influence of a working group's consensus, Wirth developped the language Pascal in Zurich. The basis was Algol-W and the desire to have a language that would satisfy the requirements of system design (compilers, operating systems, etc.). Also, there was to be a basis of clear concepts and structures, definable axiomatically and independently of any particular computer, as the language was to be suitable also for teaching in an academic environment. Pascal has satisfied these requirements; it is today one of the most widely used languages in computer science education. The first Pascal compiler was designed in Zurich for the CDC 6000 computer family, and it became operational in 1970. Already in 1972 Pascal was used in introductory programming courses. and from: http://www.unixguide.net/unix/faq/6.2.shtml A very brief look at Unix history. Unix history goes back to 1969 and the famous "little-used PDP-7 in a corner" on which Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie (the R in K&R) and others started work on what was to become Unix. The name "Unix" was intended as a pun on Multics (and was written "Unics" at first -- UNiplexed Information and Computing System). For the first 10 years, Unix development was essentially confined to Bell Labs. These initial versions were labeled "Version n" or "Nth Edition" (of the manuals), and were for DEC's PDP-11 (16 bits) and later VAXen (32 bits). Some significant versions include: V1 (1971): 1st Unix version, in assembler on a PDP-11/20. Included file system, fork(), roff, ed. Was used as a text processing tool for preparation of patents. Pipe() appeared first in V2! V4 (1973): Rewritten in C, which is probably the most significant event in this OS's history: it means Unix can be ported to a new hardware in months, and changes are easy. The C language was originally designed for the Unix operating system, and hence there is a strong synergy between C and Unix. ............ "Jan Erik Mostr�m" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Hi > >I've just found a copy of "Psychology of Programming" and I'm currently >reading it. When I read "The Nature of Programming" by Green there was two >things that caught my eye. > >The first is the paragraph: > > Neat languages actually prevent programmers from doing things that > might be 'dangerous' - which is why Pascal makes it har to get at > individual registers in the machine. Scruffies regard that as a > paternalistic, even authoritarian, attitude, and programmers in > scruffy languages are expected to look after themselves. > >I agree on this, or at least this is my experience on how it *used* to be. >But I have the impression that attitude that this has changed, or it could be >that my environment has changed. I'm working as a teacher at a Computer >Science department and the background/attitude of our students has changed a >lot the last 10 years. > >What are other peoples impressions? > >The second thing was: > > Some people enjoy writing cryptic code, while others enjoy writing > self-evident code. > >Once again I agree, but I also think this have changed (or to be more correct >I don't think most of our students would, intentionally, be able to write >cryptic code). > >What are your impressions of this, has the attitude changed? > > jem >-- >Jan Erik Mostr�m www.mostrom.pp.se > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >PPIG Discuss List ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Discuss admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss >Announce admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/announce >PPIG Discuss archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/ > ------------------------------------------- Larry Latour Associate Professor of Computer Science University of Maine Tel: 207 581 3523, Fax: 207 581 4977 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PPIG Discuss List ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Discuss admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss Announce admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/announce PPIG Discuss archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/
