C is unnecessarily cryptic IMHO and I refuse to waste time
learning it. PC computers are very powerful these days
and you should be able to program them in easily understood
plain language and let them do all the work converting the
program to bits and bytes. The one thing I did not like
about the real time Linux approach.


Totally agree with you there.  Not even a C- program's original developer can typically pick up a program and modify/debug it a year after they wrote it.
I strongly suspect that people use C primarily for job security.

BASIC was around for decades but has its limitations on huge projects. but it works fine, I even taught BASIC at the University level for a couple of years, but then I migrated to Pascal (because that is what all the colleges switched to for their introductory programming courses) and I have loved it.
Beauty of Pascal in the good-old-days was that one could pick up cheap programming help, college kids willing to work for minimum wage just to earn an little beer-money.  I must have personally written over a million lines of Pascal thru the years, and some of it is still being used commercially.
Today there are some Pascal compilers available for Linux, and I intent to see if I can get some of my old Pascal written for Windows to compile on my Linux machine.... in my spare time.

Any programming platform should not require people to redefine what the majority of technically trained people already know.  C-programmers always seem to use symbols that traditionally are used for other purposes;
For example: they far-too-often use the underscore-character as part of a variable name. Well to me ( a guy who in decades past has spent thousands of hours checking papers of college students) any small horizontal line in a mathematical expression translates as a "minus-sign". In a similar way, a slash in an equation means to for a quotient, etc.

So yes ... at this stage of my life, I too avoid C programs at all cost.

Robin Berglund