Multilevel standards

[John Chambers]

> > ...  "Standard" Pascal describes a mimimum language.  So
> > minimum that it is not usable.  I probably shouldn't claim that there
> > are no production quality standard Pascal implementations, but I don't
> > know of one and have never used one.  Because the standard is so
> > mimimal, every implementation extends the language to make it usable.
> > Because there is no standard for these extensions, they are all
> > different.  As a result, programs are not portable and the standard is
> > relatively useless.  Can we avoid this trap with C??
> 
> The problem with Pascal was that the original language was excessively
> minimal.  We *have* avoided this trap with C, since it was in heavy use
> for production work long before K&R, much less the current ANSI effort.

Hey, c/mon fellas!  Pascal was designed as an introductory language for
a first programming course.  Of course, it's restricted!  A full system
language (like C) is not appropriate for Programming 101.  A toy language
(like Pascal) is not appropriate for building operating systems.

If you're going to heap scorn, it's more appropriate to heap it on the
people who insist on using the wrong tool for the job.  I mean, a bicycle
is an atrocious tool for hauling coal cross-country; a locomotive is an
atrocious tool for riding along paths in the park.  That doesn't mean either
is an atrocious tool; it just means you've chosen the wrong one for the job.

What am I doing flaming on this topic?  It won't do any good.  Oh well,
on to the next article.  

				John Chambers