I disagree. Unextended Pascal is not a toy: it's a tool to teach computer science and structured programming. In a classroom environment in the 1970's, it's not relevant that strings have to have a defined, fixed length. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by I/O being broken, but I'd wager that's not a big deal in a classroom environment, either. In any case, evaluating unextended Pascal as anything other than a teaching tool is like complaining that a hacksaw isn't very good for screwing in screws. Talk about "wrong tool for the job!" :-)
True. But, "high-level, type-safe language" need not refer to unextended Pascal, and I see no evidence that it was intended to. He could have meant Algol W. Depending on when it was written, he could have meant Modula 2, Modula 3, or Oberon.
