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