Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!gatech!udel!burdvax!ubbpc!wgh
From: wgh@ubbpc.UUCP (William G. Hutchison)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
Summary: wow, a rational response.
Message-ID: <409@ubbpc.UUCP>
Date: 29 Nov 88 16:33:54 GMT
References: <388@ubbpc.UUCP> <16187@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <599@quintus.UUCP> <79153@sun.uucp>
Organization: UNISYS CS, Blue Bell, PA
Lines: 50


  Thank the gods of Internet!  I have finally elicited a rational response to
my original posting!

In article <79153@sun.uucp>, khb%chiba@Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Engineering) writes:
> In article <406@ubbpc.UUCP> wgh@ubbpc.UUCP (William G. Hutchison) writes:
> >Before we get embroiled in a meaningless argument, let me assert that there
> >are at least two criteria for success of a programming language:
> >  success-1: having lots of neat design ideas, and
> >  success-2: being widely adopted.
>       text deleted
> > I still maintain that this supports my earlier thesis: that committee-
> >designed languages fail and individually-designed languages succeed.
> I appreciate your clarification of success, but I think your thesis
> remains unsupported.
> > Here are some more opinions:
> >Ada	success-1?	failure-2?	small group (Ichbiah & Co.)?
> too early to tell, but since commercial shops are chosing it for new
> work (not yet in droves though) it may very well be a success-2. I
> would have classified Ada as a committee

  Thanks for your input on Ada.  I do not know how large Ichbiah's group
was, so I did not know whether to call it a committee.

> Using US success as criteria for failure-2 [of Algol-68] seems a bit parochial

  I respectively submit that I was not using US success as a criterion for the
failure of Algol-68.  I submit the lack of professional, commercial compilers
for Algol-68 on UNIX or MS-DOS as evidence that Algol-68 failed worldwide.
I quote MS-DOS and UNIX because they are emerging standard operating systems.
Even if Manchester U had implemented Algol-68 on MUSS, I consider that
community of users to be negligibly small.

> >Pascal	success-1	success-2	small group
> success-1 ?? Nearly every single early implementation had to massively
> extend it to make it useful. Code portability was nil, and etc.

  I consider Pascal to be a teaching and publication language, not a practical
application language, so I consider it to be a success, *given Wirth's stated
design goals*, not the goals who wanted Pascal to replace FORTRAN, COBOL, or
PL/I.

  I disagree with a lot of Keith's other opinions, but he is rational and
intelligent, so I will not quibble with them. (no point in duplicating them
here).
-- 
Bill Hutchison, DP Consultant	rutgers!liberty!burdvax!ubbpc!wgh
Unisys UNIX Portation Center	"What one fool can do, another can!"
P.O. Box 500, M.S. B121		Ancient Simian Proverb, quoted by
Blue Bell, PA 19424		Sylvanus P. Thompson, in _Calculus Made Easy_