🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <PCG.89Dec17184350@rupert.cs.aber.ac.uk>, pcg@rupert.cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
> 
> In article <1TmbNv#4mK14j=eric@snark.uu.net> eric@snark.uu.net
> (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
> 
>    A couple of well-informed comp.arch regulars have suggested that I may
>    have been a bit too peremptory in dismissing Algol68's influence on later
>    language development.
> 
>    Would dmr or anyone else with certain knowledge care to comment?
>
To Eric: I think you may have been a little hasty...
 
| Frankly, Algol 68 is now all but dead, but if somebody, e.g.
| Cambridge UK, were to release on the net, e.g. comp.sources.misc,
| as freeware the Algol68{C} compiler (a *very* fine piece of
| portable software) and its accessories and libraries and tools
| etc..., I believe a lot of people in the USA and elsewhere could
| rediscover its charms, and it could develop into a serious thing.
| --
To Peter:
True enough, but people are witnessing a rebirth of interest in 
another 'dead' language (APL). I would like a copy of that Algol68
from Cambridge if I could have one for UNIX. The most likely use
would be to explore in a real environment, (i.e. 'off the blackboard')
what some of the data structuring ideas of Algol68 can bring to
our in-house language design efforts.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt