True, but AFAIK they all sucked really bad. If you needed to make something that preformed back then you wrote in assembly.
FORTRAN might be a good counterexample. It’s pretty fast, and I’m not actually sure if it’s memory safe; it might be. But, it’s definitely very painful to work with, having had the displeasure.
That’s pure assumption and, as far as I can tell, not actually true. PASCAL was a strong contender. No language was competitive with handwritten assembly for several decades after C’s invention, and there’s no fundamental reason why PASCAL couldn’t benefit from intense compiler optimizations just as C has.
Here are some papers from before C “won”, a more recent article about how PASCAL “lost”, and a forum thread about what using PASCAL was actually like. None of them indicate a strong performance advantage for C.
Hmm, that’s really interesting. I went down a bit of a rabbit hole.
One thing you might not know is that the Soviets had their own, actually older version of C, the Адресный programming language, which also had pointers and higher-order pointers, and probably was memory-unsafe as a result (though even with some Russian, I can’t find anything conclusive). The thing I eventually ran into is that Pascal itself has pointer arithmetic, and so is vulnerable to the same kinds of errors. Maybe it was better than C, which is fascinating, but not that much better.
Off-topic, that Springer paper was also pretty neat, just because it sheds light on how people thought about programming in 1979. For example:
In the following, we shall
compare how “convenient” the languages are to code our
favourite solution to a programming problem,
play the devil’s advocate, and try to list all possible things
that can go wrong in a program expressed in a language.
Some of us, including myself, have reservations about the
validity of the second technique for comparison, the most
persuasive argument being that even though some of the features
are potentially dangerous, people rarely use them in those
contexts. There is certainly some truth in this, but until we
have experimentally collected data convincingly demonstrating
this, it is wiser to disbelieve it. Take note of the observed
fact of increased difficulty in formally proving the properties
of programs that use these potentially hazardous features in a
safe way. This is one of the reasons behind the increased
redundancy (and restrictions) of the newer languages like
Alphard
I don’t see a lot of people denying that 2 is a good metric today. In fact, in the rare exceptions where someone has come right out and said it, I’ve suspected JS Stockholm syndrome was involved. Murphy’s law is very real when you not only have to write code, but debug and maintain it for decades as a large team, possibly with significant turnover. Early on they were still innocent of that, and so this almost reads like something a non-CS acedemic would write about programming.
Indeed, I had no idea there are multiple languages referred to as “APL”.
I feel like most people defending C++ resort to “people shouldn’t use those features that way”. 😅
As far as I can tell, pointer arithmetic was not originally part of PASCAL; it’s just included as an extension in many implementations, but not all. Delphi, the most common modern dialect, only has optional pointer arithmetic, and only in certain regions of the code, kind of like unsafe in Rust. There are also optional bounds checks in many (possibly most) dialects. And in any case, there are other ways in which C is unsafe.
True, but AFAIK they all sucked really bad. If you needed to make something that preformed back then you wrote in assembly.
FORTRAN might be a good counterexample. It’s pretty fast, and I’m not actually sure if it’s memory safe; it might be. But, it’s definitely very painful to work with, having had the displeasure.
That’s pure assumption and, as far as I can tell, not actually true. PASCAL was a strong contender. No language was competitive with handwritten assembly for several decades after C’s invention, and there’s no fundamental reason why PASCAL couldn’t benefit from intense compiler optimizations just as C has.
Here are some papers from before C “won”, a more recent article about how PASCAL “lost”, and a forum thread about what using PASCAL was actually like. None of them indicate a strong performance advantage for C.
Hmm, that’s really interesting. I went down a bit of a rabbit hole.
One thing you might not know is that the Soviets had their own, actually older version of C, the Адресный programming language, which also had pointers and higher-order pointers, and probably was memory-unsafe as a result (though even with some Russian, I can’t find anything conclusive). The thing I eventually ran into is that Pascal itself has pointer arithmetic, and so is vulnerable to the same kinds of errors. Maybe it was better than C, which is fascinating, but not that much better.
Off-topic, that Springer paper was also pretty neat, just because it sheds light on how people thought about programming in 1979. For example:
I don’t see a lot of people denying that 2 is a good metric today. In fact, in the rare exceptions where someone has come right out and said it, I’ve suspected JS Stockholm syndrome was involved. Murphy’s law is very real when you not only have to write code, but debug and maintain it for decades as a large team, possibly with significant turnover. Early on they were still innocent of that, and so this almost reads like something a non-CS acedemic would write about programming.
Indeed, I had no idea there are multiple languages referred to as “APL”.
I feel like most people defending C++ resort to “people shouldn’t use those features that way”. 😅
As far as I can tell, pointer arithmetic was not originally part of PASCAL; it’s just included as an extension in many implementations, but not all. Delphi, the most common modern dialect, only has optional pointer arithmetic, and only in certain regions of the code, kind of like
unsafein Rust. There are also optional bounds checks in many (possibly most) dialects. And in any case, there are other ways in which C is unsafe.