Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!quintus!pds
From: pds@quintus.uucp (Peter Schachte)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Algol-68 down for the count
Message-ID: <784@quintus.UUCP>
Date: 30 Nov 88 22:02:48 GMT
References: <388@ubbpc.UUCP> <16187@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <599@quintus.UUCP> <591@tuck.nott-cs.UUCP> <404@ubbpc.UUCP> <593@tuck.nott-cs.UUCP>
Sender: news@quintus.UUCP
Reply-To: pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte)
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 28

C'mon, people, this argument isn't getting anywyere.

anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) argues that much more than two
institutions have adopted Algol-68, and there are several good
compliers.  But would you go so far as to say that Algol-68 has caught
on?  I hope not.

wgh@ubbpc.UUCP (William G. Hutchison) argues that the fact that
Algol-68 usage is not widespread means that the langauge is a failure,
implying, I take it, that it isn't a good language.  But as has been
pointed out earlier in this thread, a language's popularity is often
determined by political (or random) factors, not its elegance or
performance (how widely used is Miranda?  BLISS?).

I don't know Algol-68, but I've heard very few negative comments about
it from people who do.  It's pretty silly to tear it down based on how
widely used it is.  How many people really think the most widely used
languages (COBOL, FORTRAN, and assembler) are the best?

If wgh@ubbpc.UUCP is just arguing that languages that ultimately catch
on are those that are designed by an individual rather than a
committee, I'm still skeptical.  COBOL, if I remember correctly, was a
committee effort.  I believe FORTRAN was designed by a fairly small
group, not an individual.  I have no idea how many people designed the
first assemblers.
-Peter Schachte
pds@quintus.uucp
..!sun!quintus!pds