🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1063@theory.cs.cmu.edu> dld@theory.cs.cmu.edu (David Detlefs) writes:
>Eugene mentioned that CLU was his favorite language that he didn't get
>to use; it's my favorite language also, and I don't get to use it.  I
>think perhaps a reason we both like it is also a reason it doesn't
>belong in this equivalence class: it offers garbage-collected heap
>storage.  In this respect it is more like a strongly typed Lisp than
>it is like any of the other languages.

In this discussion the terms "Algol-based" and "the Algols" keep
popping up, which is unfortunate, since it puts to much kinship
between Algol-60 and Algol-68 than really exists.
Algol-68 was a radically new language which in concept more resembles
Lisp and similar languages than Algol-60. Algol-68 has heap storage
and the best typing mechanism I've seen ("types" are called "modes"
and are more general than types are normally).
Still, the language was conceived in the '60:s which means it is made
for a batch-oriented edit-compile-load cycle. I'll rather have a
Lispmachine any day...

>
>Missing CLU,
>
>Dave

Kinda nostalgic about Algol-68,

PD


-- 
Per Danielsson          UUCP: {mcvax,decvax,seismo}!enea!sics!pd
Swedish Institute of Computer Science
PO Box 1263, S-163 13 SPANGA, SWEDEN
"No wife, no horse, no moustache."