🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3688@hubcap.UUCP>, steve@ragman (Steve Stevenson) writes:
> From article <406@ubbpc.UUCP>, by wgh@ubbpc.UUCP (William G. Hutchison):
        [ table of languages with success/failure evaluations omitted ]
> Though your table seems to be correct as far as languages now in use
> is concerned, I think you should look at another perspective.  The
> impact of Algol-60 on the follow designs is considerable.  

 agreed.
 
> There are notable absences on the list: Simula-67 for example.  Simula
> is the ancestor of Ada and Modula.  Likewise, CPL and BCPL.

 True: I was focussing on languages still current.
 
> Languages are often busts because their inventors try to pass them
> off as the UNIQUE solution to ALL the world's problems.  ...
> ...  Pragmatic issues will win out.
> Steve (really "D. E.") Stevenson           steve@hubcap.clemson.edu

Thanks, Steve, for the sensible remarks.
The motivation behind my original posting is not to flame folks, but to
discuss why progamming languages succeed and fail: this is a branch of
psychology and political science as much as computer science.

 Now that we have gotten back to the topic I really wanted to discuss, I 
propose to focus on one particular issue:
 How can we (or you) produce a language that will supplant FORTRAN, in the 
sense that folks using FORTRAN would voluntarily migrate their code to the
new language, or that economics would force them to migrate?

 Remember, responding that "Language X is better than FORTRAN already" is
probably true, for many unifications with X, but it is not an answer to my
challenge.  An answer would be a new programming language, or a political
and economic strategy to promote the use of X rather than FORTRAN.
-- 
Bill Hutchison, DP Consultant	rutgers!liberty!burdvax!ubbpc!wgh
Unisys UNIX Portation Center	"What one fool can do, another can!"
P.O. Box 500, M.S. B121		Ancient Simian Proverb, quoted by
Blue Bell, PA 19424		Sylvanus P. Thompson, in _Calculus Made Easy_