[HN Gopher] Five Little Languages and How They Grew: Talk at HOP...
___________________________________________________________________
Five Little Languages and How They Grew: Talk at HOPL (1993)
Author : fanf2
Score : 56 points
Date : 2024-07-22 08:42 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bell-labs.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bell-labs.com)
| omoikane wrote:
| The original title was The Development of the C
| Language or, Five Little Languages and How They
| Grew
| samatman wrote:
| Not to be confused (as I did initially) with _Programming Pearls:
| Little Languages_ , by John Bentley. Which is about little
| languages _per se_ , as this is not how the languages in
| Ritchie's talk are generally described. In fact, the very first
| sentence describes Pascal as a "big language".
|
| It's also worth a read:
| https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/6424.315691
| chrisfinazzo wrote:
| Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnCgoEyz31M
| wduquette wrote:
| The name's a presumably ironical spin on the title of an old
| kid's book, "Five Little Peppers and How They Grew", by
| Margaret Sidney
| daghamm wrote:
| Interesting that other than C only pascal has survived (kind of).
|
| I have fond memories of Pascal, but when I think about it is
| actually Turbo Pascal I have great memories of and not so much
| the language itself.
|
| Turbo C/C++ was surprisingly a worse environment for me despite
| being much more fluent in C, which shows the important of a
| responsive IDE.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| > Computer languages exist to perform useful things that affect
| the world in some way, not just to express algorithms, and so
| their success depends in part on their utility.
|
| Their _all-in_ utility. That is, their utility after taking into
| account usability, but also availability, availability and
| robustness of libraries, perhaps portability, and I 'm sure there
| are more variables that affect net utility.
| foresto wrote:
| This was recently brought into sharp focus while learning a
| new-to-me C descendant. After working with it for a couple
| months, I've found a lot to like in the language itself, but
| the many paper cuts and bad ergonomics of its standard library
| have considerably drained my enthusiasm for continuing to use
| it. What a pity.
| hecanjog wrote:
| > C's own descendants, by which I mainly mean C++, may very well
| be even livelier in the next few years. Aside from languages that
| are directly descended from C, (particularly C++ but also some
| others) [...]
|
| Does anyone know what the other languages descended from C they
| might have been referring to circa 1993?
| mepian wrote:
| Objective-C?
| jll29 wrote:
| Earlier than or in 1993:
|
| - C++: 1979-
|
| - Objective C: 1984
|
| - Split-C: 1993
|
| Later than 1993:
|
| - C--: 1997
|
| - C#: 2000
|
| - D: 2001
|
| See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C-
| family_programming_l... (but this list goes a bit too far IMHO)
| trealira wrote:
| There was also this extension of C called Concurrent C, which
| has its own book called _The Concurrent C Programming
| Language_ , originally published in 1989. I don't see it on
| the Wikipedia page, which is why I'm saying it here.
| bonzini wrote:
| I would consider Rust to be informed enough by C, that it can
| be considered a descendent--as much as D, and more so than C#
| (which is more of a Java-descendent; and while Java's syntax
| is based on C, that's where it ends).
| geoelectric wrote:
| C# was also at least somewhat informed by Delphi, the
| Object Pascal variant the same architect created just prior
| to MS luring him away from Borland.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-25 23:05 UTC)