So it contributed one character? The same concept has been in many functional and concatenative languages since even before sh, and those are more likely to have inspired contemporary languages. The influence of absent Simula or Algol is multiple orders of magnitude greater than sh, so the point about the arbitrary standard for inclusion still stands.

Bourne shell is most practicing programmers' first exposure to language features supporting safe concurrency without locks or shared storage. Those features are still finding their way into C++.

And no, it is not the same concept.

When was the last time you had any contact with a running Algol or Simula program? I use sh -- bash, really -- every day.

> Those features are still finding their way into C++.

Not the only area in which C++ is 30 years (and counting) behind state of the art.

> When was the last time

The OP is supposedly about history, thus current usage is irrelevant. There's no longer a Mongol Empire either, but its existence is still historically important and only the worst kind of dilettante would try to write a history of the world without mentioning it.

Yet, other languages are, also, only just getting similar features.

The author seems to prefer to mention languages that are still taught and used, and to neglect those that are not. It being an "opinionated" history, I can only find fault where he breaks his own rules. Maybe he should mention Korn shell, for example, which became Posix shell and bash. But only Bourne shell features affected modern languages.

Did you notice that the author added Algol and Simula since we had this exchange? Kinda blows apart your theory of what the criteria were.

Or they changed.