On the limited environment where C got created, it was the only option. And everybody suddenly adopted that limited environment, because it was cheap. And then it improved until you could use any of those other languages, but at that point everybody was using C already.
Still, that was a much more powerful machine than the ones people wrote C for. And when the cheap segment of those "fridge computers" became powerful enough to run whatever you wanted to put on it, people started using small workstations. And when those workstations became powerful enough, we got PCs.
It's only when the PCs got powerful enough that we could start to ignore the compiler demands and go with whatever language fit us better. (The later reductions all were based on cross-compiling, so they don't matter here.)
Let not say that a 1961 system is more powerful than a PDP-11.
https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/bwk-on-pas...
One of the major problems, as I recall, was that Wirth's basic Pascal definition was very limited---the max 256 character strings, for example. So the makers of "production" Pascal compilers added extensions to do all of the things that you would want to do and unfortunately those extensions were all incompatible.
Here are two, RatC, Small-C.
Additionally what do you think GCC C is, in regards to K&R C and ANSI C?
Several years later, a similar encounter with Mesa's evolution, Mesa/Cedar, gave birth to Oberon.
As for being ahead of its time, very much indeed.
Many people relate to Smalltalk and Interlisp-D, and are unaware of strong typed systems programming at Xerox, with a tooling that only decades cater came to be.
Mesa authors were quite adamant that in order to succeed, Mesa had to support comparable tooling to Smalltalk and Interlisp-D environments.
It's really dependent on which field you're in. Not all scientific computing requires a beefy computer, but for a very long time it (and I guess LISP) dominated scientific computing. That said, I think it's a very good point to bring up the network effect of using C - if I need to hire a developer in 1985, it's probably easier to find someone with industry (not academic) experience who knows C than it is to find someone who knows Fortran.
I do kinda prefer Fortran to C though, it's so much cleaner to do math in. Maybe somewhere there's an alternate universe where IBM invented C and Bell invented Fortran to win the popularity war.
The other mainstream language at the time was BASIC, comparable to the way PHP is viewed today by many.
And with the advent of the 32 bit x86 era GCC and djgpp as well as early Linux systems really unlocked a lot of power. Before then you'd have to have access to a VAX or a fancy workstation to get that kind of performance out of PC hardware. It's funny how long it took for the 386 to become fully operational, many years after it was launched you had to jump through all kinds of hoops to be able to use the system properly, whereas on a 68K based system costing a tiny fraction that was considered completely normal.
How did people see Fortran back then - nowadays it's seen as outdated but fast, but was it seen as interesting, and what drove you to seek it out?
Other side question if it's okay, I keep seeing references to VAXen around historical documents and usenet posts from the 80s and 90s, what made them special compared to other hardware you had back then?
The reason that library existed in FORTRAN was that it had a native 'vector' type and allowed for decent optimization on the proper hardware (ie: multiply and accumulate) which we did not have. But the library had been validated and was approved for civil engineering purposes, porting it over would have been a ton of work and would not have served any purpose, besides it would have required recertification.
As for VAXen: A VAX 11/780 is a 32 bit minicomputer, something the size of a large fridge (though later there were also smaller ones and today you could probably stick one on a business card). It had a - for the time - a relatively large amount of memory, and was a timesharing system, in other words, multiple people used the same computer via terminals.
They weren't special per se other than that a whole raft of programmers from those days cut their teeth on them either because they came across them in universities or because they worked with them professionally. They were 'affordable' in the sense that you did not need to be a multinational or a bank in order to buy one, think a few hundred thousand $ (which was still quite a fortune back then).
I had occasional access to one through the uni account of a friend, but never did any serious work with them. The first powerful machine I got my hands on was the Atari ST, which had a 68K chip in it and allowed the connection of a hard drive. Together those two things really boosted my capabilities, suddenly I had access to a whole 512K of RAM (later 1M) and some serious compute. Compared to a time shared VAX it was much better, though the VAX had more raw power.
Concurrent to that I programmed on mainframes for a bank for about a year or so, as well as on the BBC Micro computer (6502 based) and the Dragon 32 (a UK based Color Computer clone).
Fun times. Computing back then was both more and less accessible than it is today. More because the machines were so much simpler, less because you didn't have the internet at your disposal to look stuff up.
The 386 was hampered by backwards compatibility with the weird memory architecture for the 286 and 8086, IIRC. 68Ks were just soooo much easier.
I remember making a bootloader for my own OS using TurboC that somehow had to fish four files from a minix based filesystem and dump them in memory at certain addresses and then switch to flat mode and start executing the kernel which would then initialize the system properly. That was some really weird mixed mode voodoo to switch back and forth between protected mode and real mode to be able to both use BIOS calls to fetch blocks from disk and to be able to park the data in the right spots in contiguous memory.
Very tricky stuff to get right, it took me forever before I had the first indication that something was executing after the inevitable hail Mary jump to the first instruction in the loaded kernel. But I got it to work. I actually had a guitar footpedal hooked to the reset button because it took me too many dives under the desk to recover from a crash. That was a very slow development cycle without any chance of debugging. At some point I had 8 leds hooked up to the printer port to use some 'out' opcodes to tell me where I had gotten to in the code. Poor mans emulator :)
I remember meeting people who could not wrap their heads around the idea that function parameters weren't all passed by reference. The idea of recursion would have caused them to detonate.
So that left C (before cfront was introduced). And we ran with it, everybody around was using C, there wasn't the enormous choice in languages that you have today, you either programmed in C or you were working in assembler for serious and time-critical work.
Easily proven by looking into computing magazine archives.
So lets not distorce history.
As if the BBC Micro was an example of the industry adoption at large during those days.
Any Byte, Computer Shopper, DDJ, The C Users Journal (later The C/C++ Users Journal), Crash, Amiga Format, Input, PC Techniques, You Computer, Your Sinclair,... from 1980 - 1995 thereabouts, shows a different picture in article contents and ad sections, in terms of language adoption and available set of compilers being sold.
It's a bit like me saying that today Erlang is widely adopted. Yes it is, in some circles and I absolutely love it. But even though it has some adoption the big heavy lifters today are Python, C++, C and Java. Maybe C# on account of MS and probably Javascript should rate a mention. That doesn't mean that the other 2500 or so computer programming languages do not exist or do not have relevance. But it is a realistic reflection of market share. At the computer store where I occasionally worked you could see this reflected in the requests for boxed copies of compilers and interpreters for various languages.
FoxPRO + Delphi became a very powerful combination for SME administrative systems (and before that DBIII) and once Apple launched Objective-C that got some significant market share on their platform too. But any kind of commercially developed software outside of those niches was likely to be built on the list above.
I've taken a great interest in various programming languages and learned a lot of them to the point that I could write code in them to compare them, so I'm well aware all of these (and many more!) existed. The machines I worked with were: Dragon32, BBC Micro, Acorn Atom, Apple II, C64 (though, mostly from a hardware point of view, to fix them), Atari ST (lots of work on that one), IBM PC, some mainframes (notably: IBM 4381, Sperry 1100/90) and probably others that I don't remember right now.
Some of those only had proprietary languages and compilers on them, and on some things were more free. If there was a language on any of those systems that made it large enough to rate an article in the magazines you mentioned I probably played with it. But across all of the people that I worked with at the time I've met exactly one person the programmed in Pascal and they abandoned the project because it was dog slow (it got ported to assembly...) and Modula-2 or Oberon I've never come across in the wild other than with my own experiments.
BASIC, COBOL, Assembly and C were the languages that I recall being in mainstream use. That does not invalidate your experience, it may simply not match mine.
What triggers me is the usual kind of message that C wiped everything away, being the first of its kind, when on other realities, it only started to matter when UNIX tooling became part of the picture.
On my bubble C became a thing, when Windows 3.0 went mainstream.
Coding in C on MS-DOS was mostly preparing exercises for Xenix programming classes, a single tower that students had to take turns on, so we need to prepare everything in advance on Turbo C 2.0.
On Amiga it was mostly Assembly and AMOS, on the demoscene community I was part of.
In 1992, using a mix of Turbo Pascal, DBase III+ and Clipper on MS-DOS computers, and Novell Netware.
No, I was just curious. Why would you even think I was trying to trick you? And into what?
You normally make a ton of sense but in this thread I can't follow you and I sense a ton of emotion and projection that are entirely out of character for you.
"Object oriented programming is just functions with persistent state and multiple entry points, and we all learned how bad that was in the 70s."
I'm talking about applications developers who came out of the small mainframe/minicomputer world of the 70s and into the workstation/microcomputer world of the 80s. They started with assembly, and prying them off of it was as hard as convincing engineers to use FORTRAN. Convincing those application developers to use a garbage collected language, Java, was hard in the 90s.
The statement "the alternative to C was assembly" is simply incorrect.