🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3688@hubcap.UUCP> steve@ragman writes:
>From article <406@ubbpc.UUCP>, by wgh@ubbpc.UUCP (William G. Hutchison):
>> Algol-60 success-1	failure-2	small group
>The impact of Algol-60 on the follow[ing] designs is considerable.  

Indeed it is, and on its own merits.  However, ...

>The fact that call by name is still considered a valid question 
>on the advanced CS part of the GRE is some evidence.

The fact that a language feature is enough of a challenge to understanding
that it can be used as the basis of a test question is "evidence" to me
that the feature may be more of a liability than an asset.

I was "brought up" to believe that programming languages should be 
designed to simplify and assist construction of correct programs.
I suspect that there are few features that effectively confuse students
on tests that contribute to the goal of constructing correct programs. 

My recollection is that call-by-name was included in Algol 60
to simplify implementation of some numerical analysis algorithm
like the Runge-Kutta[sp?] or Newton-Raphson (these are *not* my field),
yet it was made the default parameter transmission method.
I don't recall the subject algorithm being terribly difficult 
without call-by-name in FORTRAN.

Funny thing about how call-by-name hasn't shown up in any other
mainstream language, including [not being supported in] Algol-68.
Is it possible that the hassles of implementing call-by-name and
teaching what it does have led language designers to conclude 
that "'t'ain't worth it" ?

>Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906

At the U. of Maryland, call-by-name tended to be the basis for 
a test question in the Survey Of Programming Languages course (CMSC 330?), 
typically a junior-year course for undergraduate Computer Science majors.
There was no GRE at the time.
-- 
[The foregoing may or may not represent the position, if any, of my employer]
 
Clay Phipps                       {ingr,pyramid,sri-unix!hplabs}!garth!phipps