You are the victim of shills

Shills exist. It's a real thing.

They aren't paid. There is no possible financial gain from posting on /prog/.

But there are ideological shills that are working hard to win every-possible mind to their side.

Guess who does that?

Did you guess "the side that is over-represented on the internet and wins twelve allies every time they get a stack overflow upvote," the way that pajeets do?

You guessed wrong.

The only shills on /prog/ are the ones wringing every stone until they find one that gives a drop of blood.

/prog/ is being manipulated by C programmers and Unix hackers, because the anonymous format provides a unique opportunity for their ideas to be presented without cross-examination. Because their ideas can't withstand cross-examination.

You ever seen those posts on /prog/ about Lisp being useless in the real world? Did you know that those claims got debunked, twenty years ago? They were flat-out proved wrong, when most of you were in diapers. But you saw a statistic.

Shills are here. They won. You believe them.

>>31
Fortran and Cobol had ANSI standards and programs could be migrated to different hardware. They could run on more kinds of hardware than C too because of how C treats pointers and data structures. BCPL was designed to be portable and used O-code. PL/I ran on different computers with different word sizes and character sets. Pascal is also older than C and they ported compilers to different kinds of hardware.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-code

The O-code machine is a virtual machine that was developed by Martin Richards in the late 1960s to give machine independence to BCPL, the low-level forerunner to C and C++. The concept behind the O-Code machine was to create O-code output (O stands for Object) through the BCPL compiler. The O-code was then either interpreted or, more normally, compiled to machine specific code. This idea was used in later compilers, such as p-code for some Pascal compilers and bytecode generated for the JVM by Java compilers. O-code allowed Richards to separate general compilation issues from machine specific implementation issues when writing the BCPL compiler. Its use in the BCPL compiler made the compiler easy to port and as a result BCPL quickly became available for many machines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_(programming_language)

The second attempt was implemented in a C-like language (Scallop by Max Engeli) and then translated by hand (by R. Schild) to Pascal itself for boot-strapping.[7] It was operational by mid-1970. Many Pascal compilers since have been similarly self-hosting, that is, the compiler is itself written in Pascal, and the compiler is usually capable of recompiling itself when new features are added to the language, or when the compiler is to be ported to a new environment.

In an alternate universe, Wikipedia might read ``UNIX was implemented in a Scallop-like language (C by Dennis Ritchie)''.

The first successful port of the CDC Pascal compiler to another mainframe was completed by Welsh and Quinn at the Queen's University of Belfast (QUB) in 1972. The target was the ICL 1900 series. This compiler, in turn, was the parent of the Pascal compiler for the Information Computer Systems (ICS) Multum minicomputer. The Multum port was developed – with a view to using Pascal as a systems programming language – by Findlay, Cupples, Cavouras and Davis, working at the Department of Computing Science in Glasgow University. It is thought that Multum Pascal, which was completed in the summer of 1973, may have been the first 16-bit implementation.