←back to thread

Thomas E. Kurtz has died

(computerhistory.org)
614 points 1986 | 3 comments | 14 Nov 24 22:12 UTC | HN request time: 0.633s | source
Show context
whartung ◴[15 Nov 24 16:47 UTC] No.42148554[source]▶
What’s curious is how one of the reasons Pascal was derided was due to the limitations of the original system followed by the incompatibilities of the implementations that reached the market.

Meanwhile, BASIC, which I think it could be argued was the backbone of the mini and micro computing industry for 20 years, was all over the map in terms of implementation and features.

None of the BASICs I used were compatible outside the fundamentals of expressions and the core data types, and even then they all handled strings differently.

replies(2): >>42150692 #>>42151222 #
1. coliveira ◴[15 Nov 24 21:19 UTC] No.42151222[source]▶
The difference is that BASIC was an interpreted language, which was considered to be necessarily non-portable and only useful for teaching and small scale systems. And in fact we have no large software written in pascal (at least the original version). Pascal was designed as a compiled language that could potentially be used to write large scale systems, but had serious limitations in this respect.
replies(1): >>42151866 #
2. samatman ◴[15 Nov 24 22:18 UTC] No.42151866[source]▶
> we have no large software written in pascal

What? This isn't true at all. TeX was written in Pascal. The original Macintosh operating system was written in Pascal, then hand-translated into assembly to fit in ROM. Pascal was very widely used in the minicomputer and microcomputer eras, there were absolutely large software programs written in it, many of them.

And yeah if we're going to go with "at least the original version" then you get to ignore all the Pascal written when Turbo Pascal came on the scene. Though I don't see the point in doing that.

replies(1): >>42161558 #
3. coliveira ◴[17 Nov 24 02:42 UTC] No.42161558[source]▶
I meant to say BASIC instead of Pascal in that sentence.