andrel wrote:
> As was Pascal, dismissed as 'just an educational language' that was not 
> useful for real life projects.

Much of that comes from not having standardized the libraries, by the way. 
Most of the languages from the early 60's lived or died based on how well 
you could interface to the OS without learning the details too hard. If you 
couldn't open a file by name with your language, you were pretty much doomed 
to obscurity. If you couldn't read and write the standard files that the 
"real" programming languages (FORTRAN, COBOL, etc) created (regardless of 
whether you had to open them outside the program), you didn't even get off 
the ground.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message