Richard O'Keefe (2013), erlang-questions mailing list:
Once upon a time (about 1992ish) in a land where the moles
have beaks and swim and the deer jump on their hind legs
(Australia), a certain computer science department (RMIT)
decided that Pascal had reached its use-by date. What shall
we do? What shall we replace it with? Set up a committee!
I was on the committee. We set up a short list.
(1) Scheme.
Tiny language, amazingly capable, REPL so you can try
things out, implementations for all the machines we
cared about. And Rob Hagan at Monash had shown that
you could teach students more COBOL with one semester
of Scheme and one semester of COBOL than you could
with three semesters of COBOL.
(2) Miranda.
The commercial precursor of Haskell.
Melbourne University were also looking at this (or had
already switched to it) which would make it easier to
pick up some of their students.
(3) Ada.
Close enough to Pascal that our staff were comfortable
with it and our material would not need major revision.
A better Pascal than Pascal.
Handled concurrency about as nicely as an
imperative language can.
What was the deciding factor?
Schools.
Our deliberations leaked, and we started getting phone calls from
careers masters saying "if you go all theoretical [read: (1) or (2)]
we'll tell our pupils not to study with you."
Personally, I'd maybe not apply the adjective "smartness" here, but there is some sense in which some languages have better taste than others, and what drives language popularity is not usually good taste, and I interpret pg here to be saying he prefers to recruit programmers who show good taste in the languages they work with.