Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!gatech!hubcap!steve From: steve@ragman (Steve Stevenson) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?) Message-ID: <3688@hubcap.UUCP> Date: 29 Nov 88 19:46:27 GMT References: <406@ubbpc.UUCP> Sender: news@hubcap.UUCP Reply-To: steve@ragman Lines: 31 From article <406@ubbpc.UUCP>, by wgh@ubbpc.UUCP (William G. Hutchison): > > Ada success-1? failure-2? small group (Ichbiah & Co.)? > Algol-60 success-1 failure-2 small group > Algol-68 success-1?? failure-2 committee > C success-1 success-2 small group > COBOL failure-1 success-2 committee > FORTRAN failure-1 success-2 small group > FORTH failure-1 success-2? small group > LISP success-1 failure-2(this is changing) small group > Modula2 success-1 success-2 small group > Pascal success-1 success-2 small group > PL/I failure-1 failure-2 large committee Though your table seems to be correct as far as languages now in use is concerned, I think you should look at another perspective. The impact of Algol-60 on the follow designs is considerable. The fact that call by name is still considered a valid question on the advanced CS part of the GRE is some evidence. There are notable absences on the list: Simula-67 for example. Simula is the ancestor of Ada and Modula. Likewise, CPL and BCPL. Languages are often busts because their inventors try to pass them off as the UNIQUE solution to ALL the world's problems. C, when if first came out, me with tremendous resistance. It's still would not be my choice to write a check writing program. Pragmatic issues will win out. Steve (really "D. E.") Stevenson steve@hubcap.clemson.edu Department of Computer Science, (803)656-5880.mabell Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906