You might get more than you bargained for on that topic.
Kernighan and Plaugher had written "Software Tools" in RATFOR. Then they wrote "Software Tools in Pascal". And then, in direct response to the experience of writing that, Kernighan wrote a paper titled "Why Pascal Is Not My Favorite Programming Language". (Because writing in Pascal should have been way easier than writing in RATFOR, and it wasn't, and Kernighan gave some thought to why it wasn't.)
Note well: This refers to the original standard version of the language. Extensions like Turbo Pascal fixed many of the problems. (Except that, as he said, there was no portability between the extensions. Even that kind of was fixed by Turbo Pascal becoming the "standard" extensions.)
Just to add to the above; RATFOR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfor) was implemented as a preprocessor to Fortran with its control structures almost identical to those of C. So going from the freedom of C syntax to the straitjacket of Pascal might have been too much and hence the Pascal paper.
>You might get more than you bargained for on that topic
However, I did know about the points in your comment, mostly. [1]
That's because I happened to have read about the Tools book being first written in RATFOR (which, IIRC, stood for RATional FORtran) and then in Pascal, many years ago. I was a heavy Turbo Pascal user first, before becoming a heavy C and Unix user. And I used to keep reading the news about these subjects I was interested in. That's how I know about that topic.
[1] I said "mostly" above, because I somehow, wrongly, remembered that paper as having been written by Rob Pike, instead of by Brian Kernighan.
Finding 'Software Tools in Pascal' in my local mall bookstore, before I even had access to a computer running Pascal, turned out to be a kind of cheat code for my career. I marveled at the ideas and the writing and it set me up to acquire much of the the rest of the Kernighan canon.
I own a copy of that book and think it is good.