Comment by pjmlp

Where you feel like it.

Ouch!! Pascal's lack of popularity certainly isn't due to the fact that it supports such nice enumerated types (or sets for that matter). I think he was just pointing out that such nice things have existed (and been known to exist) for a long time and that it's odd that a new language couldn't have borrowed the feature.

Being used by these folks, https://www.embarcadero.com/

If you prefer, I can provide the same example in C, C++, D, Java, C#, Scala, Kotlin, Swift, Rust, Nim, Zig, Odin.

Just below Go with Perl in between. All above Fortran, all below Visual Basic.

https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/

It's alive and kicking, right? :) https://www.freepascal.org They even have a game engine that can compile to a WASM target: https://castle-engine.io/web

Pascal evolved into Modula-2, which Wirth then simplified into Oberon. His student Griesemer did his dissertation on extending Oberon for parallel programming on supercomputers. Concurrently, Pike found Modula-2 an inspiration for some languages he wrote in the 80s and 90s. He got together with Griesemer and Ken Thompson to rework one of those languages, Newsqueak, into Golang. So that's where Pascal is today.

Go is the one being discussed as ignoring history.

C# thankfully was designed by someone that appreciates type systems, maybe you should revisit it.

Does Pascal's break down like this Go does?

    func f(x StatusCode) {
    }

    f(728347) // There's no such status. Whateverz, no compile error.

People want sum types because sum types solve a large set of design problems, while being a concept old enough to appear back in SML in 1980s. One of the best phrased complaints I've seen against Go's design is a claim that Go language team ignored 30+ years of programming language design, because the language really seems to introduce design issues and footguns that were solved decades before work on it even started

Rust did not exist in 1976.

Sum types are not the same as the trivial example above. Sum types are actually useful, for one thing.