... we can do it in an another thread.

Of course, there is no principal obstacle to write anything in any language (contrary to me Jeff is educated enough to speak of Turing, but I think it's the same). And I know there are "religious" reasons for choosing one or the other (I would for example translate Jeff's quote as "C is more sexy for hacker-like souls"). Also the "historical" (hysterical? :-) ) reasons are clear for me.

These all are constituents of a "standard" C/Pascal flame.

I thought on something else. A language in its academic self is absolutely useless; it's the particular incarnation of it, i.e. compiler, IDE, libraries, examples, documentation - which makes it useful.

Apparently, Pascal has been conceived as a teaching tool, and as such, the Wirth's variety lacks much of the real-world's requirements. Note, how far Borland went in whipping up extensions and modifications until it started to be usable at all. But that's still PC-oriented. The embedded word expects something different - see language extensions, irregularities, nonstandard approaches (e.g. the OCG discussed now in a parallel thread - why not?)).

I just wanted to identify these components, so rarely discussed seriously in flamewars; and maybe also something else I might have missed.

JW