Re. C programming language: "They started with a great language (ALGOL60) that inspired Go, etc. Needed something ground in reality, leading to similarly great CPL. Hardware and software were so hard to use they stripped it to bare minimum (BCPL). Thompson stripped that to B because his PDP-7 was too limited and added syntax problems purely due to preference. Ritchie added a little to that to get the PDP-11 to work, resulting in C. Added struct's to for more complex data structures. Writing the simple, UNIX in C language caused C to flourish as it did due to social and economic reasons [10]. Eventual standard borrowed a bit from C++. All the C code out there resulted.
Hardware eventually got better than EDSAC, PDP-7, or PDP-11. Language and OS decisions created due to its limitations aren't removed. All of that is extended or worked around instead. UNIX and later C applications have those issues as a result. Result is a mess so huge [11] that it might be impossible to fix.
Conclusion: the worst aspects of UNIX and C were intention design decisions that had nothing to do with what a good, systems language should look like and everything to do with limitations of an EDSAC, PDP-7, & PDP-11.
Conclusion 2: we should've ditched or modified C to look more like ALGOL68 a long time ago. Like Bjourne and Wirth were doing.
Conclusion 3: C and UNIX should be avoided where possible because they're Bad by Design for reasons that stopped applying sometime in the 80's or early 90's.
However, if you're device's hardware is PDP-11 equivalent, then there is a language and OS that are stripped enough to run on it. Might want to consider C and UNIX 1.0 then. ;)"
Why do Cniles claim completely the opposite?