Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!uwvax!dogie!uwmcsd1!bbn!rochester!PT.CS.CMU.EDU!sei!sei.cmu.edu!firth
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C critisisms
Message-ID: <3686@aw.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 4 Jan 88 21:06:03 GMT
References: <7597@sunybcs.UUCP> <1473@codas.att.com>
Sender: netnews@sei.cmu.edu
Reply-To: firth@bd.sei.cmu.edu.UUCP (Robert Firth)
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, SEI, Pgh, Pa
Lines: 26

In article <1473@codas.att.com> karthur@codas.att.com (Kurt_R_Arthur) writes:

[ amid a lot of accurate and entertaining stuff on the history of C ]

> BCPL & B share a common problem, though:
>they are so sparse they are almost unusable...

Well, I've been a BCPL user and fan for more than 15 years, and by no means
consider it unusable.  Some illustrations

(a) compilers, not just for BCPL but bigger languages, including Algol-60,
    Algol-68, Fortran-77 and Modula-2.

(b) operating systems, including Tripos, one of the best (in my opinion)
    distributed OS (sold commercially as 'Trout')

(c) data bases, including 'Scrapbook' (also a commercial product), and a
    relational DB from the same vendor whose name escapes me.

(d) real-time programs, would you believe, including a distributed kernel
    to support Ada.

Yes, the language is sparse; it has very few primitive semantic concepts.
But it is also very easy to use, and you can build most of the higher-level
stuff you need.  It is also very portable, since there is not a lot to
implement, and the implementor is highly motivated to get it right.