Was Dennis Ritchie being too modest in this quote about C and Pascal?Where does this esoteric Pascal operator come from?What was the first C compiler for the Mac?When were the analogs of the C operators “break” and “continue” introduced in Pascal?What was the point of Apple Pascal having its own file system?Why was UNIX never backported to the PDP-7?Why was nil defined as a reserved word in Pascal?What caused the downfall of Pascal?x86 as a Pascal Machine?Was there ever a compiler type that was just large enough to contain a memory segment?Why is the following p-Code generated by the Apple 3 pascal compiler?

My advisor talks about me to his colleague

Are there any of the Children of the Forest left, or are they extinct?

How should I tell my manager I'm not paying for an optional after work event I'm not going to?

Something that can be activated/enabled

Causes of bimodal distributions when bootstrapping a meta-analysis model

Are the Night's Watch still required?

What was the first story to feature the plot "the monsters were human all along"?

Why wasn't the Night King naked in S08E03?

Do publishers care if submitted work has already been copyrighted?

Has the Hulk always been able to talk?

Pressure inside an infinite ocean?

Point of the Dothraki's attack in GoT S8E3?

Is there an idiom that support the idea that "inflation is bad"?

What is the solution to this metapuzzle from a university puzzling column?

How to increase the size of the cursor in Lubuntu 19.04?

Why did the Apollo 13 crew extend the LM landing gear?

Can I use a fetch land to shuffle my deck while the opponent has Ashiok, Dream Render in play?

Refinish or replace an old staircase

How to adjust tikz picture so it fits to current size of a table cell?

Is bounce rate of a website a ranking factor?

Emotional immaturity of comic-book version of superhero Shazam

Can my 2 children 10 and 12 Travel to the USA on expired American Passports? They are US citizens

Gerrymandering Puzzle - Rig the Election

What does "Managed by Windows" do in the Power options for network connection?



Was Dennis Ritchie being too modest in this quote about C and Pascal?


Where does this esoteric Pascal operator come from?What was the first C compiler for the Mac?When were the analogs of the C operators “break” and “continue” introduced in Pascal?What was the point of Apple Pascal having its own file system?Why was UNIX never backported to the PDP-7?Why was nil defined as a reserved word in Pascal?What caused the downfall of Pascal?x86 as a Pascal Machine?Was there ever a compiler type that was just large enough to contain a memory segment?Why is the following p-Code generated by the Apple 3 pascal compiler?













27















In his 1993 conference proceeding The Development of the C Language, Dennis Ritchie stated




Successors



C and even B have several direct descendants, though they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny.




Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?



We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C). Some languages may be descended from both.



(I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)






c pascal







share|improve this question

















  • 19





    It's difficult to say without knowing the context, but given Ritchie's opinion about Pascal, I'd interpret "they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny" as a tongue-in-cheek criticism along the lines of "Pascal was so bad it needed lots of successors to at least get a few things right". If this reading is correct, being "too modest" isn't what this is about...

    – dirkt
    Apr 25 at 10:33











  • Aren't some features of C itself derived from Pascal? So if you're taking this definition in the loosest sense, all descendants of C are also descendants of Pascal, (if not direct descendants) so Pascal would obviously have to have more.

    – Darrel Hoffman
    Apr 25 at 19:37







  • 2





    @Darrel Pascal and C are contemporaneous; features of C which look like Pascal are more likely to come from Algol (which both C and Pascal derive from).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 26 at 11:11











  • "and even B" -> does B actually have any known direct successors other than C? Nothing linked from this page lists anything else. I was under the impression that the distinction between B and C is itself largely retroactive and there wasn't really a clear demarcation at the time C evolved gradually from it, so much as that "new B" eventually needed a new name.

    – Leushenko
    Apr 27 at 12:07







  • 2





    @Leushenko Ritchie mentions Eh and Zed as descendants of B.

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 29 at 10:38















27















In his 1993 conference proceeding The Development of the C Language, Dennis Ritchie stated




Successors



C and even B have several direct descendants, though they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny.




Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?



We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C). Some languages may be descended from both.



(I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)






c pascal







share|improve this question

















  • 19





    It's difficult to say without knowing the context, but given Ritchie's opinion about Pascal, I'd interpret "they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny" as a tongue-in-cheek criticism along the lines of "Pascal was so bad it needed lots of successors to at least get a few things right". If this reading is correct, being "too modest" isn't what this is about...

    – dirkt
    Apr 25 at 10:33











  • Aren't some features of C itself derived from Pascal? So if you're taking this definition in the loosest sense, all descendants of C are also descendants of Pascal, (if not direct descendants) so Pascal would obviously have to have more.

    – Darrel Hoffman
    Apr 25 at 19:37







  • 2





    @Darrel Pascal and C are contemporaneous; features of C which look like Pascal are more likely to come from Algol (which both C and Pascal derive from).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 26 at 11:11











  • "and even B" -> does B actually have any known direct successors other than C? Nothing linked from this page lists anything else. I was under the impression that the distinction between B and C is itself largely retroactive and there wasn't really a clear demarcation at the time C evolved gradually from it, so much as that "new B" eventually needed a new name.

    – Leushenko
    Apr 27 at 12:07







  • 2





    @Leushenko Ritchie mentions Eh and Zed as descendants of B.

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 29 at 10:38













27












27








27


3






In his 1993 conference proceeding The Development of the C Language, Dennis Ritchie stated




Successors



C and even B have several direct descendants, though they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny.




Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?



We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C). Some languages may be descended from both.



(I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)






c pascal







share|improve this question














In his 1993 conference proceeding The Development of the C Language, Dennis Ritchie stated




Successors



C and even B have several direct descendants, though they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny.




Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?



We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C). Some languages may be descended from both.



(I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)






c pascal




c pascal






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Apr 25 at 3:23









Dr SheldonDr Sheldon

2,43131237




2,43131237







  • 19





    It's difficult to say without knowing the context, but given Ritchie's opinion about Pascal, I'd interpret "they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny" as a tongue-in-cheek criticism along the lines of "Pascal was so bad it needed lots of successors to at least get a few things right". If this reading is correct, being "too modest" isn't what this is about...

    – dirkt
    Apr 25 at 10:33











  • Aren't some features of C itself derived from Pascal? So if you're taking this definition in the loosest sense, all descendants of C are also descendants of Pascal, (if not direct descendants) so Pascal would obviously have to have more.

    – Darrel Hoffman
    Apr 25 at 19:37







  • 2





    @Darrel Pascal and C are contemporaneous; features of C which look like Pascal are more likely to come from Algol (which both C and Pascal derive from).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 26 at 11:11











  • "and even B" -> does B actually have any known direct successors other than C? Nothing linked from this page lists anything else. I was under the impression that the distinction between B and C is itself largely retroactive and there wasn't really a clear demarcation at the time C evolved gradually from it, so much as that "new B" eventually needed a new name.

    – Leushenko
    Apr 27 at 12:07







  • 2





    @Leushenko Ritchie mentions Eh and Zed as descendants of B.

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 29 at 10:38












  • 19





    It's difficult to say without knowing the context, but given Ritchie's opinion about Pascal, I'd interpret "they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny" as a tongue-in-cheek criticism along the lines of "Pascal was so bad it needed lots of successors to at least get a few things right". If this reading is correct, being "too modest" isn't what this is about...

    – dirkt
    Apr 25 at 10:33











  • Aren't some features of C itself derived from Pascal? So if you're taking this definition in the loosest sense, all descendants of C are also descendants of Pascal, (if not direct descendants) so Pascal would obviously have to have more.

    – Darrel Hoffman
    Apr 25 at 19:37







  • 2





    @Darrel Pascal and C are contemporaneous; features of C which look like Pascal are more likely to come from Algol (which both C and Pascal derive from).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 26 at 11:11











  • "and even B" -> does B actually have any known direct successors other than C? Nothing linked from this page lists anything else. I was under the impression that the distinction between B and C is itself largely retroactive and there wasn't really a clear demarcation at the time C evolved gradually from it, so much as that "new B" eventually needed a new name.

    – Leushenko
    Apr 27 at 12:07







  • 2





    @Leushenko Ritchie mentions Eh and Zed as descendants of B.

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 29 at 10:38







19




19





It's difficult to say without knowing the context, but given Ritchie's opinion about Pascal, I'd interpret "they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny" as a tongue-in-cheek criticism along the lines of "Pascal was so bad it needed lots of successors to at least get a few things right". If this reading is correct, being "too modest" isn't what this is about...

– dirkt
Apr 25 at 10:33





It's difficult to say without knowing the context, but given Ritchie's opinion about Pascal, I'd interpret "they do not rival Pascal in generating progeny" as a tongue-in-cheek criticism along the lines of "Pascal was so bad it needed lots of successors to at least get a few things right". If this reading is correct, being "too modest" isn't what this is about...

– dirkt
Apr 25 at 10:33













Aren't some features of C itself derived from Pascal? So if you're taking this definition in the loosest sense, all descendants of C are also descendants of Pascal, (if not direct descendants) so Pascal would obviously have to have more.

– Darrel Hoffman
Apr 25 at 19:37






Aren't some features of C itself derived from Pascal? So if you're taking this definition in the loosest sense, all descendants of C are also descendants of Pascal, (if not direct descendants) so Pascal would obviously have to have more.

– Darrel Hoffman
Apr 25 at 19:37





2




2





@Darrel Pascal and C are contemporaneous; features of C which look like Pascal are more likely to come from Algol (which both C and Pascal derive from).

– Stephen Kitt
Apr 26 at 11:11





@Darrel Pascal and C are contemporaneous; features of C which look like Pascal are more likely to come from Algol (which both C and Pascal derive from).

– Stephen Kitt
Apr 26 at 11:11













"and even B" -> does B actually have any known direct successors other than C? Nothing linked from this page lists anything else. I was under the impression that the distinction between B and C is itself largely retroactive and there wasn't really a clear demarcation at the time C evolved gradually from it, so much as that "new B" eventually needed a new name.

– Leushenko
Apr 27 at 12:07






"and even B" -> does B actually have any known direct successors other than C? Nothing linked from this page lists anything else. I was under the impression that the distinction between B and C is itself largely retroactive and there wasn't really a clear demarcation at the time C evolved gradually from it, so much as that "new B" eventually needed a new name.

– Leushenko
Apr 27 at 12:07





2




2





@Leushenko Ritchie mentions Eh and Zed as descendants of B.

– Stephen Kitt
Apr 29 at 10:38





@Leushenko Ritchie mentions Eh and Zed as descendants of B.

– Stephen Kitt
Apr 29 at 10:38










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















35















Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest?




I’m not sure modesty plays a part here; I don’t see any statement of value attached to the size of a language’s family.




As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?




Yes, he was correct, at least as phrased in the paper. Perceptions are perhaps biased because people tend to consider Pascal’s family tree v. C’s direct descendants (as the paper suggests itself); the main direct descendants of C by 1993 are listed in the paper:



  • Concurrent C

  • Objective C

  • C*

  • C++

Expanding the search somewhat (see for example O’Reilly’s language poster and Éric Lévénez’ Computer Languages History), one could add other direct descendants which are arguably very similar to C, although I’m not sure Ritchie was considering them when writing the paper in question:



  • the C shell

  • AWK

By 1993, Pascal had a similar number of direct descendants (identical in this analysis, but my counts are no doubt partial):



  • CLU

  • Mesa

  • Modula

  • Ada

  • Object Pascal

  • Concurrent Pascal

but in my experience people tend to think of the Pascal “progeny” as including some indirect descendants, in particular the Modula and Oberon families (Modula, Modula-2, Modula-3, Oberon, Oberon-2), and variants of Pascal itself since “core” Pascal wasn’t really usable as-is so developers used platform-specific dialects.



As you mention yourself, later languages tried to integrate lessons learned from both C-related and Pascal-related languages, and they all derive from Algol anyway. (Pascal itself started off as suggested improvements to Algol X, which weren’t accepted into the language.) Languages where the family trees rejoin include Python and Icon.



The reason Pascal is at the root of a larger family tree hasn’t been evoked yet.



Pascal was designed by Niklaus Wirth, a researcher whose work focused on studying programming itself, including the use of programming languages as teaching tools and structuring tools (for structuring programmers’ minds); programming languages were nearly a side-effect of that research, and Wirth iterated on programming languages multiple times, which led to a profusion of languages and variants. Pascal was widely studied in academic circles, and others also pursued this type of research, leading to more descendants than Wirth himself could produce.



C on the other hand was designed by Dennis Ritchie, as a tool to develop Unix. It wasn’t a research vehicle, and thus didn’t immediately produce the wealth of variants and descendants that Pascal did. It initially spread with its users, not with papers describing it, at least until The C Programming Language was published (six years after the creation of C).



The programming languages genealogical tree project includes a nice diagram, and a large list of other resources on the topic.






share|improve this answer




















  • 11





    There's a nice quote about Wirth's intentions behind Pascal included on the Free Pascal Wiki: "Occasionally, it has been claimed that Pascal was designed as a language for teaching. Although this is correct, its use in teaching was not the only goal. In fact, I do not believe in using tools and formalisms in teaching that are inadequate for any practical task.".

    – TripeHound
    Apr 25 at 7:56






  • 6





    I think it is much more accurate to say that Algol was the root of these languages, not Pascal. Pascal was largely created to be a better Algol after the debacle of Algol68, and there were a wide variety of other spin-offs that were in widespread use at the time - JOVIAL being an obvious example.

    – Maury Markowitz
    Apr 25 at 10:33






  • 4





    @Maury basing the discussion on Algol makes it harder to create an artificial distinction between C and Pascal ;-).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 25 at 13:14






  • 3





    @TripeHound the Lindsey paper covers the debacle in detail. To give you an idea, it introduction starts with “The World seems to have a rather negative perception of ALGOL 68. The language has been said to be “too big”, to be defined by an “unreadable Report” produced by a committee which “broke up in disarray”, to have no implementations, and to have no users.” (The paper does try to redeem the language.)

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 25 at 13:54






  • 4





    Algol68 was widely used as the canonical example of second-system-effect in the 1970s. It was in all the language design books of the era. It added all sorts of huge distributed costs to implement features that no one actually used, yet left many of the original implementation problems from earlier versions unsolved. But all my refs are dead tree, but looking in Google Books you can find many comments as to its sheer size and complexity.

    – Maury Markowitz
    Apr 25 at 16:35



















7














Short Answer: Yes




Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?




(*1)



Well, it's not as easy as it sounds, as there is no birth certificate with all parents named. Both languages are Algol descendants. And throughout the 1980s Pascal was seen as the way to go - eventually all the way 'til Ada. So yes.




We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C).




Err. No. This falls short of development. To start with, Pascal in its core definition is a very simple language (much more simple than C) intended for teaching classes about basic programming all the way to compiler building. As a result, it was so simplified that serious work was almost impossible - an elegant language for ivory tower games. It lacked strings, usable file I/O and any form of modularisation.



To make it usable for real world application, implementation had to enhance it substantially. And as usual, each and every developer had it his way. A UCSD Pascal program could not be compiled with Pascal/MT+ or Microsoft or Turbo Pascal, as all of them handled things differently.



If at all, then there is a main line promoted by the two most successful products: UCSD Pascal and Turbo Pascal, with the later being an extension of some sort to UCSD Pascal. The huge success of TP did lead to many other moving toward compatible constructs.



Heck, and then there are languages called Pascal which are derived from already different named languages, like Component Pascal evolved out of Oberon, which itself is a much improved Pascal child.



Bottom line, the distinction when it is a 'new' language or not cannot be made by the name.



Turbo Pascal and its incredible wide spread success (even I was tempted to use it) makes a good maker about how much more successful Pascal was in the 80s than C.




Some languages may be descended from both.




There is no 'pure' linage anywhere in the language world. To some degree all Algol based languages can as well be described as Pascal offsprings.



It may even be necessary to look past the syntactic sugar of brackets vs. keywords to realize that Pascal is mainly data driven, as its big step from Algol was the way to define data structures. In so far Ada makes the most 'pure' child of Pascal anyway (*2). Nowadays a feature to be found across basically all general purpose languages.



But let's try a list of close relatives openly carrying the family tradition:



  • Pascal

  • UCSD Pascal

  • Turbo Pascal

  • Pascal-SC

  • Oberon

  • Modula-2

  • Component-Pascal

  • Delphi

  • Concurrent Pascal

  • Pascal XL

  • Object Pascal

  • Pocket Studio

  • Vector Pascal (available for the PS2 !)

  • MS Pascal

  • Compaq Pascal (notable for type casting)

Besides all the variation two lines are notable. One is the Oberon/Modula development driven by Wirth, the other is the Borland Turbo/Delphi line. Each creating their own family of Pascal offspring sharing features. The later creating a linage looking like this:



  • (Pascal)

  • (UCSD Pascal)

  • Turbo Pascal

  • Borland Pascal

  • Object Pascal

  • Delphi

Well, and then there are all the languages with a less clear lineage all the way to JavaScript and Ada.




(I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)




As before, it depends on the way of counting. I'd say Pascal has still an advantage here :))



*1 - It may be noteworthy that Brian Kernighan in contrast offered quite some public (and less than correct) criticism about Pascal.



*2 - All the incompatible Pascal variations where the main reasons for the demand that Ada compilers could only be called that way if they adhere to a strict standard ... which eventually delayed Ada compilers way too long to really inherit the Pascal world, making room for C.






share|improve this answer




















  • 4





    IMO Turbo Pascal wasn't a commercial success because of Pascal itself, or the Borland extensions to it, but because of its IDE.

    – alephzero
    Apr 25 at 10:46






  • 6





    @alephzero "its IDE" sells it short. It was unbelievably fast. It allowed for frequent iteration in the code because of that speed. That was very much tied to the design of the language itself - namely, the fact that a single-pass compiler was trivial, and that you needed only a tiny amount of memory to store the whole thing. This also allowed for other huge features in the IDE - like the integrated debugger that just worked. Pascal had its shortcomings (most notably the lack of strings), but it was also very friendly, with a great community. People loved both Pascal and Turbo Pascal.

    – Luaan
    Apr 25 at 15:16






  • 2





    @alephzero Back then, the low cost was also a factor. It could easily cost several hundred dollars for other development environments that weren't nearly as friendly.

    – MetalMikester
    Apr 26 at 11:46






  • 1





    @Jasen It seams you are talking about a programmers PoV, which wasn't meant. It's about the compiler being more simple.Pascal follows a strict block concept with no exceptions, where C does restrict constructs to certain levels. For example in Pascal any block may contain a procedure, not possible in C, so the compiler needs to distinguish here, where Pascal just works ahead (Nested procedures are a nice way clarifying source code). Similar With can make sources way more readable than endless lines of nested structures needed in C. Ofc, this may depend on your style.

    – Raffzahn
    Apr 28 at 20:38






  • 2





    @Luaan: More interesting than the integrated debuggger that was added in 5.0 was the way that 2.x and 3.x would identify the locations were runtime errors occurred. In both CP/M and DOS, programs started at address 0x0100, so if the user indicated that an error occurred at address 0x1234, the IDE would set the limit to 0x1134 bytes, disable compiler output, and run the compiler. The part of the program that was being scanned when the compiler hits its limit would be the location of the error.

    – supercat
    Apr 29 at 15:38



















6














At the time he wrote that, it would have been literally true.
Concurrent Pascal, *Pascal, SUE (which I'd like to know more
about), Modula (not Modula-2), Modula-2, Mesa, Modula-3,
Euclid, Concurrent Euclid, Turing, Turing+, the Gypsy
specification language, LIS (another one I'd like to know
more about), and arguably CLU. Those are just ones I can
call to mind.






share|improve this answer























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "648"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f10822%2fwas-dennis-ritchie-being-too-modest-in-this-quote-about-c-and-pascal%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    35















    Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest?




    I’m not sure modesty plays a part here; I don’t see any statement of value attached to the size of a language’s family.




    As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?




    Yes, he was correct, at least as phrased in the paper. Perceptions are perhaps biased because people tend to consider Pascal’s family tree v. C’s direct descendants (as the paper suggests itself); the main direct descendants of C by 1993 are listed in the paper:



    • Concurrent C

    • Objective C

    • C*

    • C++

    Expanding the search somewhat (see for example O’Reilly’s language poster and Éric Lévénez’ Computer Languages History), one could add other direct descendants which are arguably very similar to C, although I’m not sure Ritchie was considering them when writing the paper in question:



    • the C shell

    • AWK

    By 1993, Pascal had a similar number of direct descendants (identical in this analysis, but my counts are no doubt partial):



    • CLU

    • Mesa

    • Modula

    • Ada

    • Object Pascal

    • Concurrent Pascal

    but in my experience people tend to think of the Pascal “progeny” as including some indirect descendants, in particular the Modula and Oberon families (Modula, Modula-2, Modula-3, Oberon, Oberon-2), and variants of Pascal itself since “core” Pascal wasn’t really usable as-is so developers used platform-specific dialects.



    As you mention yourself, later languages tried to integrate lessons learned from both C-related and Pascal-related languages, and they all derive from Algol anyway. (Pascal itself started off as suggested improvements to Algol X, which weren’t accepted into the language.) Languages where the family trees rejoin include Python and Icon.



    The reason Pascal is at the root of a larger family tree hasn’t been evoked yet.



    Pascal was designed by Niklaus Wirth, a researcher whose work focused on studying programming itself, including the use of programming languages as teaching tools and structuring tools (for structuring programmers’ minds); programming languages were nearly a side-effect of that research, and Wirth iterated on programming languages multiple times, which led to a profusion of languages and variants. Pascal was widely studied in academic circles, and others also pursued this type of research, leading to more descendants than Wirth himself could produce.



    C on the other hand was designed by Dennis Ritchie, as a tool to develop Unix. It wasn’t a research vehicle, and thus didn’t immediately produce the wealth of variants and descendants that Pascal did. It initially spread with its users, not with papers describing it, at least until The C Programming Language was published (six years after the creation of C).



    The programming languages genealogical tree project includes a nice diagram, and a large list of other resources on the topic.






    share|improve this answer




















    • 11





      There's a nice quote about Wirth's intentions behind Pascal included on the Free Pascal Wiki: "Occasionally, it has been claimed that Pascal was designed as a language for teaching. Although this is correct, its use in teaching was not the only goal. In fact, I do not believe in using tools and formalisms in teaching that are inadequate for any practical task.".

      – TripeHound
      Apr 25 at 7:56






    • 6





      I think it is much more accurate to say that Algol was the root of these languages, not Pascal. Pascal was largely created to be a better Algol after the debacle of Algol68, and there were a wide variety of other spin-offs that were in widespread use at the time - JOVIAL being an obvious example.

      – Maury Markowitz
      Apr 25 at 10:33






    • 4





      @Maury basing the discussion on Algol makes it harder to create an artificial distinction between C and Pascal ;-).

      – Stephen Kitt
      Apr 25 at 13:14






    • 3





      @TripeHound the Lindsey paper covers the debacle in detail. To give you an idea, it introduction starts with “The World seems to have a rather negative perception of ALGOL 68. The language has been said to be “too big”, to be defined by an “unreadable Report” produced by a committee which “broke up in disarray”, to have no implementations, and to have no users.” (The paper does try to redeem the language.)

      – Stephen Kitt
      Apr 25 at 13:54






    • 4





      Algol68 was widely used as the canonical example of second-system-effect in the 1970s. It was in all the language design books of the era. It added all sorts of huge distributed costs to implement features that no one actually used, yet left many of the original implementation problems from earlier versions unsolved. But all my refs are dead tree, but looking in Google Books you can find many comments as to its sheer size and complexity.

      – Maury Markowitz
      Apr 25 at 16:35
















    35















    Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest?




    I’m not sure modesty plays a part here; I don’t see any statement of value attached to the size of a language’s family.




    As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?




    Yes, he was correct, at least as phrased in the paper. Perceptions are perhaps biased because people tend to consider Pascal’s family tree v. C’s direct descendants (as the paper suggests itself); the main direct descendants of C by 1993 are listed in the paper:



    • Concurrent C

    • Objective C

    • C*

    • C++

    Expanding the search somewhat (see for example O’Reilly’s language poster and Éric Lévénez’ Computer Languages History), one could add other direct descendants which are arguably very similar to C, although I’m not sure Ritchie was considering them when writing the paper in question:



    • the C shell

    • AWK

    By 1993, Pascal had a similar number of direct descendants (identical in this analysis, but my counts are no doubt partial):



    • CLU

    • Mesa

    • Modula

    • Ada

    • Object Pascal

    • Concurrent Pascal

    but in my experience people tend to think of the Pascal “progeny” as including some indirect descendants, in particular the Modula and Oberon families (Modula, Modula-2, Modula-3, Oberon, Oberon-2), and variants of Pascal itself since “core” Pascal wasn’t really usable as-is so developers used platform-specific dialects.



    As you mention yourself, later languages tried to integrate lessons learned from both C-related and Pascal-related languages, and they all derive from Algol anyway. (Pascal itself started off as suggested improvements to Algol X, which weren’t accepted into the language.) Languages where the family trees rejoin include Python and Icon.



    The reason Pascal is at the root of a larger family tree hasn’t been evoked yet.



    Pascal was designed by Niklaus Wirth, a researcher whose work focused on studying programming itself, including the use of programming languages as teaching tools and structuring tools (for structuring programmers’ minds); programming languages were nearly a side-effect of that research, and Wirth iterated on programming languages multiple times, which led to a profusion of languages and variants. Pascal was widely studied in academic circles, and others also pursued this type of research, leading to more descendants than Wirth himself could produce.



    C on the other hand was designed by Dennis Ritchie, as a tool to develop Unix. It wasn’t a research vehicle, and thus didn’t immediately produce the wealth of variants and descendants that Pascal did. It initially spread with its users, not with papers describing it, at least until The C Programming Language was published (six years after the creation of C).



    The programming languages genealogical tree project includes a nice diagram, and a large list of other resources on the topic.






    share|improve this answer




















    • 11





      There's a nice quote about Wirth's intentions behind Pascal included on the Free Pascal Wiki: "Occasionally, it has been claimed that Pascal was designed as a language for teaching. Although this is correct, its use in teaching was not the only goal. In fact, I do not believe in using tools and formalisms in teaching that are inadequate for any practical task.".

      – TripeHound
      Apr 25 at 7:56






    • 6





      I think it is much more accurate to say that Algol was the root of these languages, not Pascal. Pascal was largely created to be a better Algol after the debacle of Algol68, and there were a wide variety of other spin-offs that were in widespread use at the time - JOVIAL being an obvious example.

      – Maury Markowitz
      Apr 25 at 10:33






    • 4





      @Maury basing the discussion on Algol makes it harder to create an artificial distinction between C and Pascal ;-).

      – Stephen Kitt
      Apr 25 at 13:14






    • 3





      @TripeHound the Lindsey paper covers the debacle in detail. To give you an idea, it introduction starts with “The World seems to have a rather negative perception of ALGOL 68. The language has been said to be “too big”, to be defined by an “unreadable Report” produced by a committee which “broke up in disarray”, to have no implementations, and to have no users.” (The paper does try to redeem the language.)

      – Stephen Kitt
      Apr 25 at 13:54






    • 4





      Algol68 was widely used as the canonical example of second-system-effect in the 1970s. It was in all the language design books of the era. It added all sorts of huge distributed costs to implement features that no one actually used, yet left many of the original implementation problems from earlier versions unsolved. But all my refs are dead tree, but looking in Google Books you can find many comments as to its sheer size and complexity.

      – Maury Markowitz
      Apr 25 at 16:35














    35












    35








    35








    Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest?




    I’m not sure modesty plays a part here; I don’t see any statement of value attached to the size of a language’s family.




    As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?




    Yes, he was correct, at least as phrased in the paper. Perceptions are perhaps biased because people tend to consider Pascal’s family tree v. C’s direct descendants (as the paper suggests itself); the main direct descendants of C by 1993 are listed in the paper:



    • Concurrent C

    • Objective C

    • C*

    • C++

    Expanding the search somewhat (see for example O’Reilly’s language poster and Éric Lévénez’ Computer Languages History), one could add other direct descendants which are arguably very similar to C, although I’m not sure Ritchie was considering them when writing the paper in question:



    • the C shell

    • AWK

    By 1993, Pascal had a similar number of direct descendants (identical in this analysis, but my counts are no doubt partial):



    • CLU

    • Mesa

    • Modula

    • Ada

    • Object Pascal

    • Concurrent Pascal

    but in my experience people tend to think of the Pascal “progeny” as including some indirect descendants, in particular the Modula and Oberon families (Modula, Modula-2, Modula-3, Oberon, Oberon-2), and variants of Pascal itself since “core” Pascal wasn’t really usable as-is so developers used platform-specific dialects.



    As you mention yourself, later languages tried to integrate lessons learned from both C-related and Pascal-related languages, and they all derive from Algol anyway. (Pascal itself started off as suggested improvements to Algol X, which weren’t accepted into the language.) Languages where the family trees rejoin include Python and Icon.



    The reason Pascal is at the root of a larger family tree hasn’t been evoked yet.



    Pascal was designed by Niklaus Wirth, a researcher whose work focused on studying programming itself, including the use of programming languages as teaching tools and structuring tools (for structuring programmers’ minds); programming languages were nearly a side-effect of that research, and Wirth iterated on programming languages multiple times, which led to a profusion of languages and variants. Pascal was widely studied in academic circles, and others also pursued this type of research, leading to more descendants than Wirth himself could produce.



    C on the other hand was designed by Dennis Ritchie, as a tool to develop Unix. It wasn’t a research vehicle, and thus didn’t immediately produce the wealth of variants and descendants that Pascal did. It initially spread with its users, not with papers describing it, at least until The C Programming Language was published (six years after the creation of C).



    The programming languages genealogical tree project includes a nice diagram, and a large list of other resources on the topic.






    share|improve this answer
















    Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest?




    I’m not sure modesty plays a part here; I don’t see any statement of value attached to the size of a language’s family.




    As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?




    Yes, he was correct, at least as phrased in the paper. Perceptions are perhaps biased because people tend to consider Pascal’s family tree v. C’s direct descendants (as the paper suggests itself); the main direct descendants of C by 1993 are listed in the paper:



    • Concurrent C

    • Objective C

    • C*

    • C++

    Expanding the search somewhat (see for example O’Reilly’s language poster and Éric Lévénez’ Computer Languages History), one could add other direct descendants which are arguably very similar to C, although I’m not sure Ritchie was considering them when writing the paper in question:



    • the C shell

    • AWK

    By 1993, Pascal had a similar number of direct descendants (identical in this analysis, but my counts are no doubt partial):



    • CLU

    • Mesa

    • Modula

    • Ada

    • Object Pascal

    • Concurrent Pascal

    but in my experience people tend to think of the Pascal “progeny” as including some indirect descendants, in particular the Modula and Oberon families (Modula, Modula-2, Modula-3, Oberon, Oberon-2), and variants of Pascal itself since “core” Pascal wasn’t really usable as-is so developers used platform-specific dialects.



    As you mention yourself, later languages tried to integrate lessons learned from both C-related and Pascal-related languages, and they all derive from Algol anyway. (Pascal itself started off as suggested improvements to Algol X, which weren’t accepted into the language.) Languages where the family trees rejoin include Python and Icon.



    The reason Pascal is at the root of a larger family tree hasn’t been evoked yet.



    Pascal was designed by Niklaus Wirth, a researcher whose work focused on studying programming itself, including the use of programming languages as teaching tools and structuring tools (for structuring programmers’ minds); programming languages were nearly a side-effect of that research, and Wirth iterated on programming languages multiple times, which led to a profusion of languages and variants. Pascal was widely studied in academic circles, and others also pursued this type of research, leading to more descendants than Wirth himself could produce.



    C on the other hand was designed by Dennis Ritchie, as a tool to develop Unix. It wasn’t a research vehicle, and thus didn’t immediately produce the wealth of variants and descendants that Pascal did. It initially spread with its users, not with papers describing it, at least until The C Programming Language was published (six years after the creation of C).



    The programming languages genealogical tree project includes a nice diagram, and a large list of other resources on the topic.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Apr 29 at 9:34

























    answered Apr 25 at 7:26









    Stephen KittStephen Kitt

    42.2k8174180




    42.2k8174180







    • 11





      There's a nice quote about Wirth's intentions behind Pascal included on the Free Pascal Wiki: "Occasionally, it has been claimed that Pascal was designed as a language for teaching. Although this is correct, its use in teaching was not the only goal. In fact, I do not believe in using tools and formalisms in teaching that are inadequate for any practical task.".

      – TripeHound
      Apr 25 at 7:56






    • 6





      I think it is much more accurate to say that Algol was the root of these languages, not Pascal. Pascal was largely created to be a better Algol after the debacle of Algol68, and there were a wide variety of other spin-offs that were in widespread use at the time - JOVIAL being an obvious example.

      – Maury Markowitz
      Apr 25 at 10:33






    • 4





      @Maury basing the discussion on Algol makes it harder to create an artificial distinction between C and Pascal ;-).

      – Stephen Kitt
      Apr 25 at 13:14






    • 3





      @TripeHound the Lindsey paper covers the debacle in detail. To give you an idea, it introduction starts with “The World seems to have a rather negative perception of ALGOL 68. The language has been said to be “too big”, to be defined by an “unreadable Report” produced by a committee which “broke up in disarray”, to have no implementations, and to have no users.” (The paper does try to redeem the language.)

      – Stephen Kitt
      Apr 25 at 13:54






    • 4





      Algol68 was widely used as the canonical example of second-system-effect in the 1970s. It was in all the language design books of the era. It added all sorts of huge distributed costs to implement features that no one actually used, yet left many of the original implementation problems from earlier versions unsolved. But all my refs are dead tree, but looking in Google Books you can find many comments as to its sheer size and complexity.

      – Maury Markowitz
      Apr 25 at 16:35













    • 11





      There's a nice quote about Wirth's intentions behind Pascal included on the Free Pascal Wiki: "Occasionally, it has been claimed that Pascal was designed as a language for teaching. Although this is correct, its use in teaching was not the only goal. In fact, I do not believe in using tools and formalisms in teaching that are inadequate for any practical task.".

      – TripeHound
      Apr 25 at 7:56






    • 6





      I think it is much more accurate to say that Algol was the root of these languages, not Pascal. Pascal was largely created to be a better Algol after the debacle of Algol68, and there were a wide variety of other spin-offs that were in widespread use at the time - JOVIAL being an obvious example.

      – Maury Markowitz
      Apr 25 at 10:33






    • 4





      @Maury basing the discussion on Algol makes it harder to create an artificial distinction between C and Pascal ;-).

      – Stephen Kitt
      Apr 25 at 13:14






    • 3





      @TripeHound the Lindsey paper covers the debacle in detail. To give you an idea, it introduction starts with “The World seems to have a rather negative perception of ALGOL 68. The language has been said to be “too big”, to be defined by an “unreadable Report” produced by a committee which “broke up in disarray”, to have no implementations, and to have no users.” (The paper does try to redeem the language.)

      – Stephen Kitt
      Apr 25 at 13:54






    • 4





      Algol68 was widely used as the canonical example of second-system-effect in the 1970s. It was in all the language design books of the era. It added all sorts of huge distributed costs to implement features that no one actually used, yet left many of the original implementation problems from earlier versions unsolved. But all my refs are dead tree, but looking in Google Books you can find many comments as to its sheer size and complexity.

      – Maury Markowitz
      Apr 25 at 16:35








    11




    11





    There's a nice quote about Wirth's intentions behind Pascal included on the Free Pascal Wiki: "Occasionally, it has been claimed that Pascal was designed as a language for teaching. Although this is correct, its use in teaching was not the only goal. In fact, I do not believe in using tools and formalisms in teaching that are inadequate for any practical task.".

    – TripeHound
    Apr 25 at 7:56





    There's a nice quote about Wirth's intentions behind Pascal included on the Free Pascal Wiki: "Occasionally, it has been claimed that Pascal was designed as a language for teaching. Although this is correct, its use in teaching was not the only goal. In fact, I do not believe in using tools and formalisms in teaching that are inadequate for any practical task.".

    – TripeHound
    Apr 25 at 7:56




    6




    6





    I think it is much more accurate to say that Algol was the root of these languages, not Pascal. Pascal was largely created to be a better Algol after the debacle of Algol68, and there were a wide variety of other spin-offs that were in widespread use at the time - JOVIAL being an obvious example.

    – Maury Markowitz
    Apr 25 at 10:33





    I think it is much more accurate to say that Algol was the root of these languages, not Pascal. Pascal was largely created to be a better Algol after the debacle of Algol68, and there were a wide variety of other spin-offs that were in widespread use at the time - JOVIAL being an obvious example.

    – Maury Markowitz
    Apr 25 at 10:33




    4




    4





    @Maury basing the discussion on Algol makes it harder to create an artificial distinction between C and Pascal ;-).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 25 at 13:14





    @Maury basing the discussion on Algol makes it harder to create an artificial distinction between C and Pascal ;-).

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 25 at 13:14




    3




    3





    @TripeHound the Lindsey paper covers the debacle in detail. To give you an idea, it introduction starts with “The World seems to have a rather negative perception of ALGOL 68. The language has been said to be “too big”, to be defined by an “unreadable Report” produced by a committee which “broke up in disarray”, to have no implementations, and to have no users.” (The paper does try to redeem the language.)

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 25 at 13:54





    @TripeHound the Lindsey paper covers the debacle in detail. To give you an idea, it introduction starts with “The World seems to have a rather negative perception of ALGOL 68. The language has been said to be “too big”, to be defined by an “unreadable Report” produced by a committee which “broke up in disarray”, to have no implementations, and to have no users.” (The paper does try to redeem the language.)

    – Stephen Kitt
    Apr 25 at 13:54




    4




    4





    Algol68 was widely used as the canonical example of second-system-effect in the 1970s. It was in all the language design books of the era. It added all sorts of huge distributed costs to implement features that no one actually used, yet left many of the original implementation problems from earlier versions unsolved. But all my refs are dead tree, but looking in Google Books you can find many comments as to its sheer size and complexity.

    – Maury Markowitz
    Apr 25 at 16:35






    Algol68 was widely used as the canonical example of second-system-effect in the 1970s. It was in all the language design books of the era. It added all sorts of huge distributed costs to implement features that no one actually used, yet left many of the original implementation problems from earlier versions unsolved. But all my refs are dead tree, but looking in Google Books you can find many comments as to its sheer size and complexity.

    – Maury Markowitz
    Apr 25 at 16:35












    7














    Short Answer: Yes




    Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?




    (*1)



    Well, it's not as easy as it sounds, as there is no birth certificate with all parents named. Both languages are Algol descendants. And throughout the 1980s Pascal was seen as the way to go - eventually all the way 'til Ada. So yes.




    We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C).




    Err. No. This falls short of development. To start with, Pascal in its core definition is a very simple language (much more simple than C) intended for teaching classes about basic programming all the way to compiler building. As a result, it was so simplified that serious work was almost impossible - an elegant language for ivory tower games. It lacked strings, usable file I/O and any form of modularisation.



    To make it usable for real world application, implementation had to enhance it substantially. And as usual, each and every developer had it his way. A UCSD Pascal program could not be compiled with Pascal/MT+ or Microsoft or Turbo Pascal, as all of them handled things differently.



    If at all, then there is a main line promoted by the two most successful products: UCSD Pascal and Turbo Pascal, with the later being an extension of some sort to UCSD Pascal. The huge success of TP did lead to many other moving toward compatible constructs.



    Heck, and then there are languages called Pascal which are derived from already different named languages, like Component Pascal evolved out of Oberon, which itself is a much improved Pascal child.



    Bottom line, the distinction when it is a 'new' language or not cannot be made by the name.



    Turbo Pascal and its incredible wide spread success (even I was tempted to use it) makes a good maker about how much more successful Pascal was in the 80s than C.




    Some languages may be descended from both.




    There is no 'pure' linage anywhere in the language world. To some degree all Algol based languages can as well be described as Pascal offsprings.



    It may even be necessary to look past the syntactic sugar of brackets vs. keywords to realize that Pascal is mainly data driven, as its big step from Algol was the way to define data structures. In so far Ada makes the most 'pure' child of Pascal anyway (*2). Nowadays a feature to be found across basically all general purpose languages.



    But let's try a list of close relatives openly carrying the family tradition:



    • Pascal

    • UCSD Pascal

    • Turbo Pascal

    • Pascal-SC

    • Oberon

    • Modula-2

    • Component-Pascal

    • Delphi

    • Concurrent Pascal

    • Pascal XL

    • Object Pascal

    • Pocket Studio

    • Vector Pascal (available for the PS2 !)

    • MS Pascal

    • Compaq Pascal (notable for type casting)

    Besides all the variation two lines are notable. One is the Oberon/Modula development driven by Wirth, the other is the Borland Turbo/Delphi line. Each creating their own family of Pascal offspring sharing features. The later creating a linage looking like this:



    • (Pascal)

    • (UCSD Pascal)

    • Turbo Pascal

    • Borland Pascal

    • Object Pascal

    • Delphi

    Well, and then there are all the languages with a less clear lineage all the way to JavaScript and Ada.




    (I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)




    As before, it depends on the way of counting. I'd say Pascal has still an advantage here :))



    *1 - It may be noteworthy that Brian Kernighan in contrast offered quite some public (and less than correct) criticism about Pascal.



    *2 - All the incompatible Pascal variations where the main reasons for the demand that Ada compilers could only be called that way if they adhere to a strict standard ... which eventually delayed Ada compilers way too long to really inherit the Pascal world, making room for C.






    share|improve this answer




















    • 4





      IMO Turbo Pascal wasn't a commercial success because of Pascal itself, or the Borland extensions to it, but because of its IDE.

      – alephzero
      Apr 25 at 10:46






    • 6





      @alephzero "its IDE" sells it short. It was unbelievably fast. It allowed for frequent iteration in the code because of that speed. That was very much tied to the design of the language itself - namely, the fact that a single-pass compiler was trivial, and that you needed only a tiny amount of memory to store the whole thing. This also allowed for other huge features in the IDE - like the integrated debugger that just worked. Pascal had its shortcomings (most notably the lack of strings), but it was also very friendly, with a great community. People loved both Pascal and Turbo Pascal.

      – Luaan
      Apr 25 at 15:16






    • 2





      @alephzero Back then, the low cost was also a factor. It could easily cost several hundred dollars for other development environments that weren't nearly as friendly.

      – MetalMikester
      Apr 26 at 11:46






    • 1





      @Jasen It seams you are talking about a programmers PoV, which wasn't meant. It's about the compiler being more simple.Pascal follows a strict block concept with no exceptions, where C does restrict constructs to certain levels. For example in Pascal any block may contain a procedure, not possible in C, so the compiler needs to distinguish here, where Pascal just works ahead (Nested procedures are a nice way clarifying source code). Similar With can make sources way more readable than endless lines of nested structures needed in C. Ofc, this may depend on your style.

      – Raffzahn
      Apr 28 at 20:38






    • 2





      @Luaan: More interesting than the integrated debuggger that was added in 5.0 was the way that 2.x and 3.x would identify the locations were runtime errors occurred. In both CP/M and DOS, programs started at address 0x0100, so if the user indicated that an error occurred at address 0x1234, the IDE would set the limit to 0x1134 bytes, disable compiler output, and run the compiler. The part of the program that was being scanned when the compiler hits its limit would be the location of the error.

      – supercat
      Apr 29 at 15:38
















    7














    Short Answer: Yes




    Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?




    (*1)



    Well, it's not as easy as it sounds, as there is no birth certificate with all parents named. Both languages are Algol descendants. And throughout the 1980s Pascal was seen as the way to go - eventually all the way 'til Ada. So yes.




    We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C).




    Err. No. This falls short of development. To start with, Pascal in its core definition is a very simple language (much more simple than C) intended for teaching classes about basic programming all the way to compiler building. As a result, it was so simplified that serious work was almost impossible - an elegant language for ivory tower games. It lacked strings, usable file I/O and any form of modularisation.



    To make it usable for real world application, implementation had to enhance it substantially. And as usual, each and every developer had it his way. A UCSD Pascal program could not be compiled with Pascal/MT+ or Microsoft or Turbo Pascal, as all of them handled things differently.



    If at all, then there is a main line promoted by the two most successful products: UCSD Pascal and Turbo Pascal, with the later being an extension of some sort to UCSD Pascal. The huge success of TP did lead to many other moving toward compatible constructs.



    Heck, and then there are languages called Pascal which are derived from already different named languages, like Component Pascal evolved out of Oberon, which itself is a much improved Pascal child.



    Bottom line, the distinction when it is a 'new' language or not cannot be made by the name.



    Turbo Pascal and its incredible wide spread success (even I was tempted to use it) makes a good maker about how much more successful Pascal was in the 80s than C.




    Some languages may be descended from both.




    There is no 'pure' linage anywhere in the language world. To some degree all Algol based languages can as well be described as Pascal offsprings.



    It may even be necessary to look past the syntactic sugar of brackets vs. keywords to realize that Pascal is mainly data driven, as its big step from Algol was the way to define data structures. In so far Ada makes the most 'pure' child of Pascal anyway (*2). Nowadays a feature to be found across basically all general purpose languages.



    But let's try a list of close relatives openly carrying the family tradition:



    • Pascal

    • UCSD Pascal

    • Turbo Pascal

    • Pascal-SC

    • Oberon

    • Modula-2

    • Component-Pascal

    • Delphi

    • Concurrent Pascal

    • Pascal XL

    • Object Pascal

    • Pocket Studio

    • Vector Pascal (available for the PS2 !)

    • MS Pascal

    • Compaq Pascal (notable for type casting)

    Besides all the variation two lines are notable. One is the Oberon/Modula development driven by Wirth, the other is the Borland Turbo/Delphi line. Each creating their own family of Pascal offspring sharing features. The later creating a linage looking like this:



    • (Pascal)

    • (UCSD Pascal)

    • Turbo Pascal

    • Borland Pascal

    • Object Pascal

    • Delphi

    Well, and then there are all the languages with a less clear lineage all the way to JavaScript and Ada.




    (I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)




    As before, it depends on the way of counting. I'd say Pascal has still an advantage here :))



    *1 - It may be noteworthy that Brian Kernighan in contrast offered quite some public (and less than correct) criticism about Pascal.



    *2 - All the incompatible Pascal variations where the main reasons for the demand that Ada compilers could only be called that way if they adhere to a strict standard ... which eventually delayed Ada compilers way too long to really inherit the Pascal world, making room for C.






    share|improve this answer




















    • 4





      IMO Turbo Pascal wasn't a commercial success because of Pascal itself, or the Borland extensions to it, but because of its IDE.

      – alephzero
      Apr 25 at 10:46






    • 6





      @alephzero "its IDE" sells it short. It was unbelievably fast. It allowed for frequent iteration in the code because of that speed. That was very much tied to the design of the language itself - namely, the fact that a single-pass compiler was trivial, and that you needed only a tiny amount of memory to store the whole thing. This also allowed for other huge features in the IDE - like the integrated debugger that just worked. Pascal had its shortcomings (most notably the lack of strings), but it was also very friendly, with a great community. People loved both Pascal and Turbo Pascal.

      – Luaan
      Apr 25 at 15:16






    • 2





      @alephzero Back then, the low cost was also a factor. It could easily cost several hundred dollars for other development environments that weren't nearly as friendly.

      – MetalMikester
      Apr 26 at 11:46






    • 1





      @Jasen It seams you are talking about a programmers PoV, which wasn't meant. It's about the compiler being more simple.Pascal follows a strict block concept with no exceptions, where C does restrict constructs to certain levels. For example in Pascal any block may contain a procedure, not possible in C, so the compiler needs to distinguish here, where Pascal just works ahead (Nested procedures are a nice way clarifying source code). Similar With can make sources way more readable than endless lines of nested structures needed in C. Ofc, this may depend on your style.

      – Raffzahn
      Apr 28 at 20:38






    • 2





      @Luaan: More interesting than the integrated debuggger that was added in 5.0 was the way that 2.x and 3.x would identify the locations were runtime errors occurred. In both CP/M and DOS, programs started at address 0x0100, so if the user indicated that an error occurred at address 0x1234, the IDE would set the limit to 0x1134 bytes, disable compiler output, and run the compiler. The part of the program that was being scanned when the compiler hits its limit would be the location of the error.

      – supercat
      Apr 29 at 15:38














    7












    7








    7







    Short Answer: Yes




    Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?




    (*1)



    Well, it's not as easy as it sounds, as there is no birth certificate with all parents named. Both languages are Algol descendants. And throughout the 1980s Pascal was seen as the way to go - eventually all the way 'til Ada. So yes.




    We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C).




    Err. No. This falls short of development. To start with, Pascal in its core definition is a very simple language (much more simple than C) intended for teaching classes about basic programming all the way to compiler building. As a result, it was so simplified that serious work was almost impossible - an elegant language for ivory tower games. It lacked strings, usable file I/O and any form of modularisation.



    To make it usable for real world application, implementation had to enhance it substantially. And as usual, each and every developer had it his way. A UCSD Pascal program could not be compiled with Pascal/MT+ or Microsoft or Turbo Pascal, as all of them handled things differently.



    If at all, then there is a main line promoted by the two most successful products: UCSD Pascal and Turbo Pascal, with the later being an extension of some sort to UCSD Pascal. The huge success of TP did lead to many other moving toward compatible constructs.



    Heck, and then there are languages called Pascal which are derived from already different named languages, like Component Pascal evolved out of Oberon, which itself is a much improved Pascal child.



    Bottom line, the distinction when it is a 'new' language or not cannot be made by the name.



    Turbo Pascal and its incredible wide spread success (even I was tempted to use it) makes a good maker about how much more successful Pascal was in the 80s than C.




    Some languages may be descended from both.




    There is no 'pure' linage anywhere in the language world. To some degree all Algol based languages can as well be described as Pascal offsprings.



    It may even be necessary to look past the syntactic sugar of brackets vs. keywords to realize that Pascal is mainly data driven, as its big step from Algol was the way to define data structures. In so far Ada makes the most 'pure' child of Pascal anyway (*2). Nowadays a feature to be found across basically all general purpose languages.



    But let's try a list of close relatives openly carrying the family tradition:



    • Pascal

    • UCSD Pascal

    • Turbo Pascal

    • Pascal-SC

    • Oberon

    • Modula-2

    • Component-Pascal

    • Delphi

    • Concurrent Pascal

    • Pascal XL

    • Object Pascal

    • Pocket Studio

    • Vector Pascal (available for the PS2 !)

    • MS Pascal

    • Compaq Pascal (notable for type casting)

    Besides all the variation two lines are notable. One is the Oberon/Modula development driven by Wirth, the other is the Borland Turbo/Delphi line. Each creating their own family of Pascal offspring sharing features. The later creating a linage looking like this:



    • (Pascal)

    • (UCSD Pascal)

    • Turbo Pascal

    • Borland Pascal

    • Object Pascal

    • Delphi

    Well, and then there are all the languages with a less clear lineage all the way to JavaScript and Ada.




    (I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)




    As before, it depends on the way of counting. I'd say Pascal has still an advantage here :))



    *1 - It may be noteworthy that Brian Kernighan in contrast offered quite some public (and less than correct) criticism about Pascal.



    *2 - All the incompatible Pascal variations where the main reasons for the demand that Ada compilers could only be called that way if they adhere to a strict standard ... which eventually delayed Ada compilers way too long to really inherit the Pascal world, making room for C.






    share|improve this answer















    Short Answer: Yes




    Was Ritchie correct, or was he just being modest? As of the date of the quote (1993), were more computer languages descended from Pascal than C?




    (*1)



    Well, it's not as easy as it sounds, as there is no birth certificate with all parents named. Both languages are Algol descendants. And throughout the 1980s Pascal was seen as the way to go - eventually all the way 'til Ada. So yes.




    We are counting languages, not their specific compilers/implementations (e.g. UCSD Pascal, Borland C).




    Err. No. This falls short of development. To start with, Pascal in its core definition is a very simple language (much more simple than C) intended for teaching classes about basic programming all the way to compiler building. As a result, it was so simplified that serious work was almost impossible - an elegant language for ivory tower games. It lacked strings, usable file I/O and any form of modularisation.



    To make it usable for real world application, implementation had to enhance it substantially. And as usual, each and every developer had it his way. A UCSD Pascal program could not be compiled with Pascal/MT+ or Microsoft or Turbo Pascal, as all of them handled things differently.



    If at all, then there is a main line promoted by the two most successful products: UCSD Pascal and Turbo Pascal, with the later being an extension of some sort to UCSD Pascal. The huge success of TP did lead to many other moving toward compatible constructs.



    Heck, and then there are languages called Pascal which are derived from already different named languages, like Component Pascal evolved out of Oberon, which itself is a much improved Pascal child.



    Bottom line, the distinction when it is a 'new' language or not cannot be made by the name.



    Turbo Pascal and its incredible wide spread success (even I was tempted to use it) makes a good maker about how much more successful Pascal was in the 80s than C.




    Some languages may be descended from both.




    There is no 'pure' linage anywhere in the language world. To some degree all Algol based languages can as well be described as Pascal offsprings.



    It may even be necessary to look past the syntactic sugar of brackets vs. keywords to realize that Pascal is mainly data driven, as its big step from Algol was the way to define data structures. In so far Ada makes the most 'pure' child of Pascal anyway (*2). Nowadays a feature to be found across basically all general purpose languages.



    But let's try a list of close relatives openly carrying the family tradition:



    • Pascal

    • UCSD Pascal

    • Turbo Pascal

    • Pascal-SC

    • Oberon

    • Modula-2

    • Component-Pascal

    • Delphi

    • Concurrent Pascal

    • Pascal XL

    • Object Pascal

    • Pocket Studio

    • Vector Pascal (available for the PS2 !)

    • MS Pascal

    • Compaq Pascal (notable for type casting)

    Besides all the variation two lines are notable. One is the Oberon/Modula development driven by Wirth, the other is the Borland Turbo/Delphi line. Each creating their own family of Pascal offspring sharing features. The later creating a linage looking like this:



    • (Pascal)

    • (UCSD Pascal)

    • Turbo Pascal

    • Borland Pascal

    • Object Pascal

    • Delphi

    Well, and then there are all the languages with a less clear lineage all the way to JavaScript and Ada.




    (I doubt such a claim would still be true today.)




    As before, it depends on the way of counting. I'd say Pascal has still an advantage here :))



    *1 - It may be noteworthy that Brian Kernighan in contrast offered quite some public (and less than correct) criticism about Pascal.



    *2 - All the incompatible Pascal variations where the main reasons for the demand that Ada compilers could only be called that way if they adhere to a strict standard ... which eventually delayed Ada compilers way too long to really inherit the Pascal world, making room for C.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Apr 25 at 9:47









    LangLangC

    7331212




    7331212










    answered Apr 25 at 6:52









    RaffzahnRaffzahn

    57.8k6141237




    57.8k6141237







    • 4





      IMO Turbo Pascal wasn't a commercial success because of Pascal itself, or the Borland extensions to it, but because of its IDE.

      – alephzero
      Apr 25 at 10:46






    • 6





      @alephzero "its IDE" sells it short. It was unbelievably fast. It allowed for frequent iteration in the code because of that speed. That was very much tied to the design of the language itself - namely, the fact that a single-pass compiler was trivial, and that you needed only a tiny amount of memory to store the whole thing. This also allowed for other huge features in the IDE - like the integrated debugger that just worked. Pascal had its shortcomings (most notably the lack of strings), but it was also very friendly, with a great community. People loved both Pascal and Turbo Pascal.

      – Luaan
      Apr 25 at 15:16






    • 2





      @alephzero Back then, the low cost was also a factor. It could easily cost several hundred dollars for other development environments that weren't nearly as friendly.

      – MetalMikester
      Apr 26 at 11:46






    • 1





      @Jasen It seams you are talking about a programmers PoV, which wasn't meant. It's about the compiler being more simple.Pascal follows a strict block concept with no exceptions, where C does restrict constructs to certain levels. For example in Pascal any block may contain a procedure, not possible in C, so the compiler needs to distinguish here, where Pascal just works ahead (Nested procedures are a nice way clarifying source code). Similar With can make sources way more readable than endless lines of nested structures needed in C. Ofc, this may depend on your style.

      – Raffzahn
      Apr 28 at 20:38






    • 2





      @Luaan: More interesting than the integrated debuggger that was added in 5.0 was the way that 2.x and 3.x would identify the locations were runtime errors occurred. In both CP/M and DOS, programs started at address 0x0100, so if the user indicated that an error occurred at address 0x1234, the IDE would set the limit to 0x1134 bytes, disable compiler output, and run the compiler. The part of the program that was being scanned when the compiler hits its limit would be the location of the error.

      – supercat
      Apr 29 at 15:38













    • 4





      IMO Turbo Pascal wasn't a commercial success because of Pascal itself, or the Borland extensions to it, but because of its IDE.

      – alephzero
      Apr 25 at 10:46






    • 6





      @alephzero "its IDE" sells it short. It was unbelievably fast. It allowed for frequent iteration in the code because of that speed. That was very much tied to the design of the language itself - namely, the fact that a single-pass compiler was trivial, and that you needed only a tiny amount of memory to store the whole thing. This also allowed for other huge features in the IDE - like the integrated debugger that just worked. Pascal had its shortcomings (most notably the lack of strings), but it was also very friendly, with a great community. People loved both Pascal and Turbo Pascal.

      – Luaan
      Apr 25 at 15:16






    • 2





      @alephzero Back then, the low cost was also a factor. It could easily cost several hundred dollars for other development environments that weren't nearly as friendly.

      – MetalMikester
      Apr 26 at 11:46






    • 1





      @Jasen It seams you are talking about a programmers PoV, which wasn't meant. It's about the compiler being more simple.Pascal follows a strict block concept with no exceptions, where C does restrict constructs to certain levels. For example in Pascal any block may contain a procedure, not possible in C, so the compiler needs to distinguish here, where Pascal just works ahead (Nested procedures are a nice way clarifying source code). Similar With can make sources way more readable than endless lines of nested structures needed in C. Ofc, this may depend on your style.

      – Raffzahn
      Apr 28 at 20:38






    • 2





      @Luaan: More interesting than the integrated debuggger that was added in 5.0 was the way that 2.x and 3.x would identify the locations were runtime errors occurred. In both CP/M and DOS, programs started at address 0x0100, so if the user indicated that an error occurred at address 0x1234, the IDE would set the limit to 0x1134 bytes, disable compiler output, and run the compiler. The part of the program that was being scanned when the compiler hits its limit would be the location of the error.

      – supercat
      Apr 29 at 15:38








    4




    4





    IMO Turbo Pascal wasn't a commercial success because of Pascal itself, or the Borland extensions to it, but because of its IDE.

    – alephzero
    Apr 25 at 10:46





    IMO Turbo Pascal wasn't a commercial success because of Pascal itself, or the Borland extensions to it, but because of its IDE.

    – alephzero
    Apr 25 at 10:46




    6




    6





    @alephzero "its IDE" sells it short. It was unbelievably fast. It allowed for frequent iteration in the code because of that speed. That was very much tied to the design of the language itself - namely, the fact that a single-pass compiler was trivial, and that you needed only a tiny amount of memory to store the whole thing. This also allowed for other huge features in the IDE - like the integrated debugger that just worked. Pascal had its shortcomings (most notably the lack of strings), but it was also very friendly, with a great community. People loved both Pascal and Turbo Pascal.

    – Luaan
    Apr 25 at 15:16





    @alephzero "its IDE" sells it short. It was unbelievably fast. It allowed for frequent iteration in the code because of that speed. That was very much tied to the design of the language itself - namely, the fact that a single-pass compiler was trivial, and that you needed only a tiny amount of memory to store the whole thing. This also allowed for other huge features in the IDE - like the integrated debugger that just worked. Pascal had its shortcomings (most notably the lack of strings), but it was also very friendly, with a great community. People loved both Pascal and Turbo Pascal.

    – Luaan
    Apr 25 at 15:16




    2




    2





    @alephzero Back then, the low cost was also a factor. It could easily cost several hundred dollars for other development environments that weren't nearly as friendly.

    – MetalMikester
    Apr 26 at 11:46





    @alephzero Back then, the low cost was also a factor. It could easily cost several hundred dollars for other development environments that weren't nearly as friendly.

    – MetalMikester
    Apr 26 at 11:46




    1




    1





    @Jasen It seams you are talking about a programmers PoV, which wasn't meant. It's about the compiler being more simple.Pascal follows a strict block concept with no exceptions, where C does restrict constructs to certain levels. For example in Pascal any block may contain a procedure, not possible in C, so the compiler needs to distinguish here, where Pascal just works ahead (Nested procedures are a nice way clarifying source code). Similar With can make sources way more readable than endless lines of nested structures needed in C. Ofc, this may depend on your style.

    – Raffzahn
    Apr 28 at 20:38





    @Jasen It seams you are talking about a programmers PoV, which wasn't meant. It's about the compiler being more simple.Pascal follows a strict block concept with no exceptions, where C does restrict constructs to certain levels. For example in Pascal any block may contain a procedure, not possible in C, so the compiler needs to distinguish here, where Pascal just works ahead (Nested procedures are a nice way clarifying source code). Similar With can make sources way more readable than endless lines of nested structures needed in C. Ofc, this may depend on your style.

    – Raffzahn
    Apr 28 at 20:38




    2




    2





    @Luaan: More interesting than the integrated debuggger that was added in 5.0 was the way that 2.x and 3.x would identify the locations were runtime errors occurred. In both CP/M and DOS, programs started at address 0x0100, so if the user indicated that an error occurred at address 0x1234, the IDE would set the limit to 0x1134 bytes, disable compiler output, and run the compiler. The part of the program that was being scanned when the compiler hits its limit would be the location of the error.

    – supercat
    Apr 29 at 15:38






    @Luaan: More interesting than the integrated debuggger that was added in 5.0 was the way that 2.x and 3.x would identify the locations were runtime errors occurred. In both CP/M and DOS, programs started at address 0x0100, so if the user indicated that an error occurred at address 0x1234, the IDE would set the limit to 0x1134 bytes, disable compiler output, and run the compiler. The part of the program that was being scanned when the compiler hits its limit would be the location of the error.

    – supercat
    Apr 29 at 15:38












    6














    At the time he wrote that, it would have been literally true.
    Concurrent Pascal, *Pascal, SUE (which I'd like to know more
    about), Modula (not Modula-2), Modula-2, Mesa, Modula-3,
    Euclid, Concurrent Euclid, Turing, Turing+, the Gypsy
    specification language, LIS (another one I'd like to know
    more about), and arguably CLU. Those are just ones I can
    call to mind.






    share|improve this answer



























      6














      At the time he wrote that, it would have been literally true.
      Concurrent Pascal, *Pascal, SUE (which I'd like to know more
      about), Modula (not Modula-2), Modula-2, Mesa, Modula-3,
      Euclid, Concurrent Euclid, Turing, Turing+, the Gypsy
      specification language, LIS (another one I'd like to know
      more about), and arguably CLU. Those are just ones I can
      call to mind.






      share|improve this answer

























        6












        6








        6







        At the time he wrote that, it would have been literally true.
        Concurrent Pascal, *Pascal, SUE (which I'd like to know more
        about), Modula (not Modula-2), Modula-2, Mesa, Modula-3,
        Euclid, Concurrent Euclid, Turing, Turing+, the Gypsy
        specification language, LIS (another one I'd like to know
        more about), and arguably CLU. Those are just ones I can
        call to mind.






        share|improve this answer













        At the time he wrote that, it would have been literally true.
        Concurrent Pascal, *Pascal, SUE (which I'd like to know more
        about), Modula (not Modula-2), Modula-2, Mesa, Modula-3,
        Euclid, Concurrent Euclid, Turing, Turing+, the Gypsy
        specification language, LIS (another one I'd like to know
        more about), and arguably CLU. Those are just ones I can
        call to mind.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Apr 25 at 5:19









        raokraok

        31612




        31612



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f10822%2fwas-dennis-ritchie-being-too-modest-in-this-quote-about-c-and-pascal%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Club Baloncesto Breogán Índice Historia | Pavillón | Nome | O Breogán na cultura popular | Xogadores | Adestradores | Presidentes | Palmarés | Historial | Líderes | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegacióncbbreogan.galCadroGuía oficial da ACB 2009-10, páxina 201Guía oficial ACB 1992, páxina 183. Editorial DB.É de 6.500 espectadores sentados axeitándose á última normativa"Estudiantes Junior, entre as mellores canteiras"o orixinalHemeroteca El Mundo Deportivo, 16 setembro de 1970, páxina 12Historia do BreogánAlfredo Pérez, o último canoneiroHistoria C.B. BreogánHemeroteca de El Mundo DeportivoJimmy Wright, norteamericano do Breogán deixará Lugo por ameazas de morteResultados de Breogán en 1986-87Resultados de Breogán en 1990-91Ficha de Velimir Perasović en acb.comResultados de Breogán en 1994-95Breogán arrasa al Barça. "El Mundo Deportivo", 27 de setembro de 1999, páxina 58CB Breogán - FC BarcelonaA FEB invita a participar nunha nova Liga EuropeaCharlie Bell na prensa estatalMáximos anotadores 2005Tempada 2005-06 : Tódolos Xogadores da Xornada""Non quero pensar nunha man negra, mais pregúntome que está a pasar""o orixinalRaúl López, orgulloso dos xogadores, presume da boa saúde económica do BreogánJulio González confirma que cesa como presidente del BreogánHomenaxe a Lisardo GómezA tempada do rexurdimento celesteEntrevista a Lisardo GómezEl COB dinamita el Pazo para forzar el quinto (69-73)Cafés Candelas, patrocinador del CB Breogán"Suso Lázare, novo presidente do Breogán"o orixinalCafés Candelas Breogán firma el mayor triunfo de la historiaEl Breogán realizará 17 homenajes por su cincuenta aniversario"O Breogán honra ao seu fundador e primeiro presidente"o orixinalMiguel Giao recibiu a homenaxe do PazoHomenaxe aos primeiros gladiadores celestesO home que nos amosa como ver o Breo co corazónTita Franco será homenaxeada polos #50anosdeBreoJulio Vila recibirá unha homenaxe in memoriam polos #50anosdeBreo"O Breogán homenaxeará aos seus aboados máis veteráns"Pechada ovación a «Capi» Sanmartín e Ricardo «Corazón de González»Homenaxe por décadas de informaciónPaco García volve ao Pazo con motivo do 50 aniversario"Resultados y clasificaciones""O Cafés Candelas Breogán, campión da Copa Princesa""O Cafés Candelas Breogán, equipo ACB"C.B. Breogán"Proxecto social"o orixinal"Centros asociados"o orixinalFicha en imdb.comMario Camus trata la recuperación del amor en 'La vieja música', su última película"Páxina web oficial""Club Baloncesto Breogán""C. B. Breogán S.A.D."eehttp://www.fegaba.com

            Image
            Barça LassaBAXI ManresaCafés Candelas BreogánDelteco GBCDivina Seguros JoventutHerbalife Gran CanariaIberostar TenerifeKirolbet BaskoniaMonbus ObradoiroMontakit FuenlabradaMoraBanc AndorraMovistar EstudiantesReal MadridSan Pablo BurgosTecnyconta ZaragozaUCAM MurciaUnicajaValencia Basket Club Baloncesto Breogán baloncestoLugoGalicia1966JuanJosé Ramón Varela Portasmáxima categoría1970competicións europeasLiga ACBPavillón MunicipalPazo dos DeportesJesús Lázareliga EBAClub Estudiantes1965Lugobaloncestosegunda divisiónJosé RamónJuan Varela-Portas y Pardo1966Celestino Fernández de la Vega196869primeira divisiónZaragozaprimeira divisiónReal MadridJoventutEstudiantes19701971máxima categoría estatal11 de outubro1970Palacio dos DeportesLugoTenerifeMadridReal MadridAlfredo PérezBreogán19711972TenerifeMadridvascocatalánAlfredo PérezespañolMadridLugoManresa La Casera19741975As...
            Read more

            Vilaño, A Laracha Índice Patrimonio | Lugares e parroquias | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegación43°14′52″N 8°36′03″O / 43.24775, -8.60070

            Image
            Parroquias da LarachaParroquias de Galicia baixo a advocación de Santiago o Maior coruñésLarachacomarca de BergantiñosIGE20131999castro de Montesclarospoboado castrexoidade de ferroromanización de Galiciamiliariopazo de Montesclarosséculo XIXAmboadeA AreosaA BarreiraBos AiresA BoticaAs Brañas da ViñaAs BrañasBusteloOs CanedosFerreirosAs FervenzasA Fonte da CanleO FormigueiroFornelosA FragaFragundeGravidoA LamelaMarfuloOs MeánsMontes ClarosA PanelaO PazoQuintánsRibelaSamiroO SeixoA TelleiraVilañoVilanovaA ViñaVista AlegreCabovilaño (San Román)Caión (Santa María do Socorro)Coiro (San Xián)Erboedo (Santa María)Golmar (San Bieito)Lemaio (Santa Mariña)Lendo (San Xián)Lestón (San Martiño)Montemaior (Santa María Madanela)Soandres (San Pedro)Soutullo (Santa María)Torás (Santa María)Vilaño (Santiago) Vilaño, A Laracha Na Galipedia, a Wi...
            Read more

            Cegueira Índice Epidemioloxía | Deficiencia visual | Tipos de cegueira | Principais causas de cegueira | Tratamento | Técnicas de adaptación e axudas | Vida dos cegos | Primeiros auxilios | Crenzas respecto das persoas cegas | Crenzas das persoas cegas | O neno deficiente visual | Aspectos psicolóxicos da cegueira | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegación54.054.154.436928256blindnessDicionario da Real Academia GalegaPortal das Palabras"International Standards: Visual Standards — Aspects and Ranges of Vision Loss with Emphasis on Population Surveys.""Visual impairment and blindness""Presentan un plan para previr a cegueira"o orixinalACCDV Associació Catalana de Cecs i Disminuïts Visuals - PMFTrachoma"Effect of gene therapy on visual function in Leber's congenital amaurosis"1844137110.1056/NEJMoa0802268Cans guía - os mellores amigos dos cegosArquivadoEscola de cans guía para cegos en Mortágua, PortugalArquivado"Tecnología para ciegos y deficientes visuales. Recopilación de recursos gratuitos en la Red""Colorino""‘COL.diesis’, escuchar los sonidos del color""COL.diesis: Transforming Colour into Melody and Implementing the Result in a Colour Sensor Device"o orixinal"Sistema de desarrollo de sinestesia color-sonido para invidentes utilizando un protocolo de audio""Enseñanza táctil - geometría y color. Juegos didácticos para niños ciegos y videntes""Sistema Constanz"L'ocupació laboral dels cecs a l'Estat espanyol està pràcticament equiparada a la de les persones amb visió, entrevista amb Pedro ZuritaONCE (Organización Nacional de Cegos de España)Prevención da cegueiraDescrición de deficiencias visuais (Disc@pnet)Braillín, un boneco atractivo para calquera neno, con ou sen discapacidade, que permite familiarizarse co sistema de escritura e lectura brailleAxudas Técnicas36838ID00897494007150-90057129528256DOID:1432HP:0000618D001766C10.597.751.941.162C97109C0155020

            Image
            OftalmoloxíaDiscapacidade sentidovistaNorteaméricaEuropaollopaíses en vías de desenvolvementopaíses desenvolvidos2014Organización Mundial da SaúdeGaliciaretinopatía diabéticaglaucomaresto visualagudeza visualcampo visualterapia xénicaretinavirus do arrefriado comúncanadestradoséculo XIXLouis Brailleteclado brailleescáneresrecoñecemento óptico de caractereslectores de pantallacorsinestesiafrauta doceamareloclarineteazultamboresvermellopianoverdeSistema Constanzsemáforocans guíaBrailletactosoftwaretactoeuroAvuiséculo XXUnión SoviéticaFranciaItaliaInglaterraNataciónatletismociclismojudoesquífútbol salamontañismoxadrezgoalballsociedademúsicosindixentesprofetassabiosoídotactomúsicarisatactooídolinguaxePiaget (function()var node=document.getElementById("mw-dismissablenotice-anonplace");if(node)node.outerHTML="u003Cdiv class="mw-dismissable-notice"u0...
            Read more