Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!anw From: anw@nott-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Algol-68 down for the count Message-ID: <596@tuck.nott-cs.UUCP> Date: 30 Nov 88 16:32:01 GMT References: <388@ubbpc.UUCP> <16187@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <599@quintus.UUCP> <5495@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk> <408@ubbpc.UUCP> Reply-To: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) Organization: Department of Mathematics, The University, NOTTINGHAM, NG7 2RD, UK. Lines: 52 In article <408@ubbpc.UUCP> wgh@ubbpc.UUCP (William G. Hutchison) writes: > >Consider the following criteria for success: > > If Algol-68 had been a success, it would be used on more than 1/10 percent of >the computers in the world. By this criterion, Cobol certainly fails, Fortran probably fails. Oh, you meant *real* computers? > If Algol-68 had been a success, it would be used in every developed nation, It's been *seriously* used, to my knowledge, in the USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Czechoslovakia, USSR, Netherlands, Belgium, and a few others. Don't know of any use in Luxembourg. Where else were you thinking of? > If Algol-68 had been a success, Wirth would not have invented Pascal and >Modula-2. Wirth is a law unto himself. If P had been a success, he presumably shouldn't have invented M2. If M2 had been a success, he wouldn't have invented Oberon. If Wirth had understood A68, the world might have been different in many ways. > If Algol-68 had been a success, [ a few more silly ones ] > > Algol-68 fails every of these criteria for success, therefor it is a failure. > QED. Whether or not the conclusion is true, it "therefor" doesn't follow from this argument. > You may blame lazy compiler writers or the Evil Empire (IBM) for the failure >of Algol-68, but I submit that the root problem was that the Algol-68 committee >could not or would not produce a human-readable spec for the language. But this is ridiculous. (a) The A68 spec (the Revised Report, I assume you mean) is perfectly readable, and has been read and understood by many, many people. Anyone capable of writing a compiler for any language whatsoever should have no problems with the RR. (b) Many other languages have specs of equal or greater difficulty, or (worse) no spec at all. I haven't seen the new C standard, but if it is *significantly* "easier" than the RR, the committee simply won't have done its job. (c) Users learn from textbooks, not from "specs". (d) The A68 group *did* commission a user-friendly description (Lindsey & vd Meulen: "Informal Introduction to Algol 68", already mentioned several times in this group). -- Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK. anw@maths.nott.ac.uk