Timeline for What caused the downfall of Pascal? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 14 at 13:44 | comment | added | Lundin | No programming language has ever stayed alive or successful without one or several big companies backing it. The only ones who truly backed Pascal seem to have been Borland, but they were just a tool vendor. The big players like Microsoft, Sun and Apple etc backed other languages. | |
| Dec 19, 2020 at 20:44 | history | edited | user3840170 |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 15, 2018 at 16:25 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Sep 17, 2018 at 6:48 | |||||
| Aug 23, 2018 at 13:10 | comment | added | cbmeeks | The SE network should have a place to recommend people go for opinion based questions. Sites like Quora (quora.com) are a good place to ask this kind of question. In fact, you can pretty much ask any question you like over there. | |
| Aug 23, 2018 at 11:32 | history | edited | Omar and Lorraine | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 5 characters in body; edited title
|
| Aug 23, 2018 at 11:16 | history | edited | Omar and Lorraine | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
No need for quotes around C
|
| Aug 23, 2018 at 6:45 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Aug 24, 2018 at 12:42 | |||||
| Aug 23, 2018 at 6:27 | vote | accept | jwzumwalt | ||
| Aug 8, 2018 at 5:31 | history | edited | Leo B. |
edited tags
|
|
| Jun 17, 2018 at 8:14 | comment | added | Jules | I have an entirely different theory ... C had nothing to do with the demise of Pascal. Pascal competed against C reasonably effectively right into the early 90s. Yes, C gained a reputation as being the more serious alternative, but there was a core of happy Pascal users, myself included, right up to the mid 90s. We happily moved to object-oriented Pascals when they became available ... and then, largely, to Java. Circa 97, Java became the new Pascal, at least for a large bunch of us. Its goals were similar, it had a roughly equivalent spirit, but it was better supported, so we moved. | |
| Jun 16, 2018 at 12:19 | comment | added | Maury Markowitz | I can't answer (closing is so... bad) but I think people are not giving nearly enough weight to the simple fact that "everyone knew" C++ was the final future language. The entire market assumed that was the case. I recall articles in Mac-related programming magazines that basically concluded that if you wanted to remain employed, use C++. Seems quaint in retrospect. | |
| Jun 15, 2018 at 21:29 | vote | accept | jwzumwalt | ||
| Aug 23, 2018 at 6:27 | |||||
| Jun 15, 2018 at 4:43 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Jun 19, 2018 at 12:34 | |||||
| Jun 14, 2018 at 22:01 | comment | added | supercat | @bishop: A bigger question might be why people use the same name for the language Dennis Ritchie invented for the purpose of systems programming and dialects that are suitable for that purpose, as they use for dialects that are totally unsuitable for that purpose. The language which became popular should, if anything, be the non-scare-quoted one. | |
| Jun 14, 2018 at 18:55 | history | closed |
Stephen Kitt PeterI Raffzahn JeremyP Rui F Ribeiro |
Opinion-based | |
| Jun 14, 2018 at 17:30 | comment | added | rcgldr | In a somewhat related and even briefer period of somewhat popularity, Watcom C/C++ 10.0 was the only toolset that fully implemented Windows 3.1 winmem32 as a flat 32 bit address space memory model (which didn't require win32s). It's popularity went away with the release of Windows 95. | |
| Jun 14, 2018 at 17:10 | answer | added | Solomon Slow | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 14, 2018 at 16:41 | answer | added | Will Hartung | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jun 14, 2018 at 16:23 | comment | added | bishop | Why are you scare quoting C? | |
| Jun 14, 2018 at 14:59 | answer | added | supercat | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jun 14, 2018 at 14:32 | answer | added | Brian H | timeline score: 13 | |
| Jun 14, 2018 at 14:12 | comment | added | Brian H | Borland Delphi (Object Pascal) was hugely popular for Windows programming well into the 2000's. Object Pascal's fortunes closely tracked Borland's choices. | |
| Jun 14, 2018 at 12:56 | comment | added | Tommy | ... but then again, BGI was supplied also with Turbo C. The early-teenaged me actually wrote some 3d games with it. Luckily, slow graphics were the least of my coding problems at the time. Things I still (probably) recall: setting the border colour implicitly gives you a vsync. Geometry drawn in colour 0 inexplicably appears one pixel to the right of geometry drawn with the same coordinates in any other colour. | |
| Jun 14, 2018 at 10:11 | comment | added | Stephen Kitt | (I suppose what was ground-breaking about BGI was its font support and pluggable architecture.) | |
| Jun 14, 2018 at 10:07 | comment | added | Stephen Kitt | I’ve taken the time to write an answer, but this is really opinion-based, and there are a number of inaccuracies in the question: Pascal wasn’t only used on PCs, BGI wasn’t all that great (many BASIC implementations had better graphics, and of course games programmers wrote in assembly mostly), and the fact that C was held up in standardisation committees didn’t really hurt its popularity all that much. | |
| Jun 14, 2018 at 9:41 | answer | added | Stephen Kitt | timeline score: 32 | |
| Jun 14, 2018 at 9:01 | answer | added | Steve Jones | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jun 14, 2018 at 6:52 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 14, 2018 at 18:43 | |||||
| Jun 14, 2018 at 6:31 | history | asked | jwzumwalt | CC BY-SA 4.0 |