🚀 go-pugleaf

In <YV6O4AC@math.fu-berlin.de> dww@math.fu-berlin.de (Debora Weber-Wulff) writes:

>Why is Algol 68 not being used? Well, it seems to have every feature
>ever needed, and is thus rather difficult to read and learn.

Difficult??? You can say so after PL/I, Ada and C++ ?!  The main advantage
of Algol-68 is simplicity and small number of basic orthogonal elements.
It's even simplier than Pascal (in number of senses).

>Sure, it has some nice stuff (like "own" variables), but look at
>the definition - what is it, 5 cm thick? 

"own" variables is a feature of Algol-60. Variables in Algol-68 are
syntactic sugar, not a basic element.

5-cm thick is the FORMAL definition of the language and it should be read
only by complier designers, not for end loosers. There are also some
informal books on Algol-68, some are really good (cannot remember
authors now, sigh). The latter books are not thick.

After all Algol-68 is THE ONLY well-described language.

>All the same, I'd like to hear about "real" software (as opposed
>to programming exercises) that have been programmed in it.

Some sexy military programs I've heard about. Plus I have known a
women who wrote a whole medical information system for Moscow University
in Algol 68. UK Royal Radar Society used it as well.

I think the only reason why Algol-68 was forgotten is the well-known
American ignorance on European computer civilization. Pascal seems to
be the first worldwide accepted European language. Algol-68 was too
early. Still I think it deserves to be remembered.

Vadim Antonov
DEMOS, Moscow, USSR