modern FORTRAN is absolutely horrific, to the extent that F77 is far more popular than more recent flavors (like F90 or F95). It suffers from the same types of problems that the author identifies in C++ and Java.
As for standard library, I learned from K&R and have never been surprised by the library (insofar as I can reasonably predict what will happen, given the guidelines). I cannot say that about the C++ standard library (don't get me started on STL) or Java
And as for debugging, it took me years to become adept at parsing STL error messages (wading through cruft like basic_string to get to the essence of the error).
however I do agree that Borland and turbo pascal are exemplary.
The overarching point in the erlang example is that the bug stemmed from something in erlang itself. C and the standard library are sufficiently documented and tested that there is no ambiguity. (Regarding the natural counterpoint on indeterminate expressions like I++ + ++I, the language specification is also clear on the nature of indeterminate forms)
I thought the major point is that it's a "high level" language, high enough that a compiler can do serious optimizations. Read Fran Allen's interview in Coders at Work, she despairs of writing efficient compilers/programs in C because it's so low level.
Now, sometimes you need that low level access, but C is used way beyond those niches.
FORTRAN 77 is far more popular because it took so long for a GNU FORTRAN 9x compiler to appear, and meanwhile there are millions of lines of FORTRAN 77 in enormous libraries.
The problem with the standard library is that it is tiny and its basic types are often ill designed. Certainly it's fairly consistent, and so fairly unsurprising, but that's not the argument.
It also has to do with the type of people that program in FORTRAN. They often have backgrounds more grounded in Maths or Physics than computers. I don't think the GNU compiler had much to do with it because people using FORTRAN are more likely to be using something else (we use Solaris Studio where I work).
As for standard library, I learned from K&R and have never been surprised by the library (insofar as I can reasonably predict what will happen, given the guidelines). I cannot say that about the C++ standard library (don't get me started on STL) or Java
And as for debugging, it took me years to become adept at parsing STL error messages (wading through cruft like basic_string to get to the essence of the error).
however I do agree that Borland and turbo pascal are exemplary.