I think "C wannabe" is a complaint about some modern BASICs trying to be too much like C.

Dartmouth BASIC and timesharing were remarkable achievements: a simplified version of Fortran that could be learned in an afternoon but could be used for a wide variety of programs, including games; a fast, interactive compiler; and efficient resource usage and multiplexing that enabled a single machine to be shared by dozens (?) of interactive users. BASIC was also simple enough that it could be implemented compactly and efficiently on 8-bit microcomputers, while retaining its ease of learning for beginners and non-experts. And you could still write/run games with it.

And could be used as systems programming language on 8 and 16 bit home computers, long before C got famous outside UNIX, while being safer at it.

So there is nothing like wanting to be like C, when its mainstream adoption predates C.

Actually I am quite thankful to have learnt systems programming on 8 and 16 bit systems, with BASIC and Pascal variations, macro Assemblers, exactly long before C's mainstream adoption, because I am not tainted with the idea before C there was nothing else, as it eventually became a common myth.

I still see Forth far more advanced than Basic and C+Unix it's a bit meh. Being orthogonal with pipes it's cool, but Forth did that better since day 1 and without even a wordlist.

On Pascal, good for DOS, and maybe the Classic Mac, but even under Unix there were really good underused platforms, like TCL/Tk +SQLite. More crude than VB, for sure; but, seriously, most of the time a quick tool in that language would cover the 90% of the needs of any corporation.