I think it&#x27;s funny you disregard historical accuracy in a presentation about <i>the legacy</i> of a language where the author looks &quot;at historical examples to set the stage&quot; with an image of &quot;the History of Programming Languages.&quot; You&#x27;re really grasping at straws trying to argue actual truth or historical evidence aren&#x27;t relevant in such a post. Worse, any reader reading such things would assume the person did <i>some</i> research on it.<p>Then, from that point, almost everything the author says about C&#x27;s history, purpose, and effect were wrong. The only thing correct is everything in the room at the time was written in C [probably]. Which is actually meaningless given it&#x27;s a historical accident far as the language itself goes.<p>So C&#x27;s legacy is that most, mainstream OS&#x27;s are written in C. The reason? Thompson and Ritchie used C for UNIX plus shared it with lots of people with poor hardware. That&#x27;s it. It wasn&#x27;t designed, it wasn&#x27;t intentionally portable, it wasn&#x27;t better than anything then or now... nothing really about C itself justified it sticking around. Purveying such myths makes people think it&#x27;s technically superior and that we should keep investing into it and similar languages for system use. Very damaging myth. So, I counter it everywhere I see it.<p>&quot;If you&#x27;re going to spend four sentences speaking about a core language, that is still in active use, that the audience will have heard of then C is a far better goto language than any of the ones listed above.&quot;<p>I can bring up C without lying about it&#x27;s history, portability, and so on. The author was probably mislead by others rather than intentionally doing it, though. Hence the need for these comments.<p>&quot;That decade abended years ago. They are no longer germane to a discussion at a conference in 2015, unless you&#x27;re deep diving in language lineage.&quot;<p>Many are still around, in commercial use, and some updated. Still better than C at robust, systems programming. I agree the author doesn&#x27;t really need to go into them nor did I ask that in original comment. Just that any statements are accurate in a post about history and legacy. This is why I didn&#x27;t gripe about &quot;C++ also codified the ideas of zero-cost abstractions,&quot; which existed before C++. Yet, C++ brought them to widespread attention. Probably the author&#x27;s intent and so no gripe from me.<p>Didn&#x27;t you consider the fact that I left the rest of the write-up alone in my comment? That it might be for a reason I had lazer-like focus on the inaccuracies in the C entry rather than attacking the presentation as a whole. I get what the article is about and that&#x27;s why it should maintain historical accuracy more than most.