🚀 go-pugleaf

Re: What makes a language successfu
By: Greg Lee on Wed, 14 Dec 1988 18:18

Re: Programming Language Converters, 2nd ed. (~230 lines)
By: Gideon Yuval on Wed, 14 Dec 1988 15:56

Algol-style semicolons (was Re: What makes a language successful)
By: James Jones on Wed, 14 Dec 1988 16:03

Re: OO debugger usage
By: purchase on Tue, 13 Dec 1988 21:12

Re: What makes a language successfu
By: carroll on Fri, 09 Dec 1988 17:27

reusable design vs. reusable code
By: wsmith on Thu, 08 Dec 1988 23:54

Programming Language Converters, 2nd ed. (~230 lines)
By: William G. Hutchison on Tue, 13 Dec 1988 19:55

Re: How to supplant FORTRAN
By: Eugene Miya on Mon, 12 Dec 1988 22:46

Re: How to supplant FORTRAN (Was: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Eng... on Mon, 12 Dec 1988 22:17

Re: How to supplant FORTRAN (Was: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: Richard Harter on Sat, 03 Dec 1988 18:09

Max 1.30 is available
By: Tony Stuart on Mon, 12 Dec 1988 19:30

Re: How to supplant FORTRAN (Was: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: Steven Ryan on Sat, 10 Dec 1988 23:07

Re: Algol 68 (was Re: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: Andy Bray on Sat, 10 Dec 1988 08:25

Re: aGREeable features (was Re: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: Jeff Dalton on Fri, 09 Dec 1988 21:33

Re: Linkage Declaration (was Re: Standardization (of FORTRAN, Ada, ect.))
By: Bob Dietrich on Tue, 13 Dec 1988 19:39

Re: aGREeable features (was Re: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: Clay Phipps on Thu, 08 Dec 1988 07:09

Re: How to supplant FORTRAN (Was: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: John Sambrook on Fri, 09 Dec 1988 00:34

Re: aGREeable features (was Re: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: Richard A. O'Keefe on Fri, 09 Dec 1988 05:33

Re: How to supplant FORTRAN (Was: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: Steve Stevenson on Thu, 08 Dec 1988 18:51

Re: How to supplant FORTRAN (Was: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: John Sambrook on Thu, 08 Dec 1988 06:55

Re: Assembly or ....ok
By: Tharakesh Siddalingaiah on Wed, 07 Dec 1988 23:35

Re: Assembly or ....
By: Dik T. Winter on Wed, 07 Dec 1988 01:21

Re: aGREeable features (was Re: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: Richard A. O'Keefe on Wed, 07 Dec 1988 00:55

Re: Assembly or ....
By: Dave Berry on Mon, 05 Dec 1988 18:33

Re: Assembly or ....
By: Dave Berry on Mon, 05 Dec 1988 18:20

Re: aGREeable features (was Re: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: Clay Phipps on Tue, 06 Dec 1988 08:41

Re: How to supplant FORTRAN (Was: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: Steve Stevenson on Tue, 06 Dec 1988 13:25

Re: What makes a language successful? (Was: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: Brian Tompsett on Sun, 04 Dec 1988 16:10

Re: How to supplant FORTRAN (Was: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: Richard A. O'Keefe on Tue, 06 Dec 1988 02:08

Re: call-by-name
By: Richard A. O'Keefe on Tue, 06 Dec 1988 02:00

Re: call-by-name
By: Jeff Siegal on Tue, 06 Dec 1988 02:25

Re: call-by-name
By: Darren New on Tue, 06 Dec 1988 00:40

Re: Assembly or ....
By: Liber on Tue, 06 Dec 1988 00:02

Programming Language converters (LONG)
By: William G. Hutchison on Mon, 05 Dec 1988 16:35

Re: Tearing down the tower of Babel.
By: Tony Stuart on Mon, 05 Dec 1988 14:41

Re: How to supplant FORTRAN (Was: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: Steve Stevenson on Mon, 05 Dec 1988 13:31

call-by-name
By: John Gateley on Mon, 05 Dec 1988 04:00

Re: What makes a language successful? (Was: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: Richard A. O'Keefe on Mon, 05 Dec 1988 02:41

Re: What makes a language successful? (Was: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: Bruce Albrecht on Mon, 05 Dec 1988 03:54

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: James Jones on Sat, 03 Dec 1988 16:09

Re: object oriented design decision
By: Daniel B Hankins on Sun, 04 Dec 1988 03:35

Re: aGREeable features (was Re: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: Mark VandeWettering on Sun, 04 Dec 1988 03:01

IEEE Visual Languages Workshop Proceedings wanted
By: Scott Moody on Thu, 01 Dec 1988 22:12

Re: Assembly or ....ok
By: Bob Rogers on Sat, 03 Dec 1988 06:55

OO debugger usage
By: Jan on Fri, 02 Dec 1988 15:23

What makes a language successful? (Was: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: William G. Hutchison on Fri, 02 Dec 1988 15:04

Tearing down the tower of Babel.
By: William G. Hutchison on Fri, 02 Dec 1988 23:01

Learning languages widely used (Was: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: William G. Hutchison on Fri, 02 Dec 1988 21:07

How to supplant FORTRAN (Was: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: William G. Hutchison on Fri, 02 Dec 1988 20:47

Re: aGREeable features (was Re: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: Richard A. O'Keefe on Fri, 02 Dec 1988 08:57

Re: Sucessful Languages (was: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: Alex Colvin on Fri, 02 Dec 1988 14:42

Better Than Sliced Bread ? (was Re: Alternatives to refs ())
By: Clay Phipps on Fri, 02 Dec 1988 05:18

aGREeable features (was Re: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: Clay Phipps on Thu, 01 Dec 1988 03:50

Might Makes Right ? (was Re: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: Clay Phipps on Thu, 01 Dec 1988 02:26

Re: Assembly or ....
By: Chris Torek on Fri, 02 Dec 1988 01:46

ALGOL 68 (skip)
By: Ian Cottam on Wed, 30 Nov 1988 15:37

Re: Alternatives to refs
By: Charles Lindsey on Wed, 30 Nov 1988 11:52

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: Charles Lindsey on Wed, 30 Nov 1988 11:02

Re: Algol-68 down for the count
By: anw on Wed, 30 Nov 1988 16:32

Re: Algol-68 down for the count
By: anw on Wed, 30 Nov 1988 15:54

Re: Assembly or ....
By: Fraser Orr on Wed, 30 Nov 1988 16:26

Re: Alternatives to refs
By: Andrew K. Wright on Thu, 01 Dec 1988 18:51

Re: Algol-68 down for the count
By: Peter Schachte on Wed, 30 Nov 1988 22:02

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: Richard A. O'Keefe on Wed, 30 Nov 1988 09:15

Re: Assembly or ....
By: Richard A. O'Keefe on Wed, 30 Nov 1988 09:01

Icon plug (was Re: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: Richard A. O'Keefe on Wed, 30 Nov 1988 08:49

Sucessful Languages (was: Algol-68 down for the count)
By: Glen Ditchfield on Wed, 30 Nov 1988 15:19

Re: Alternatives to refs
By: anw on Tue, 29 Nov 1988 12:30

Re: Need for language interface standards (was Re: COBOL -> C converter)
By: William G. Hutchison on Tue, 29 Nov 1988 21:05

Re: Assembly or ....
By: wsmith on Tue, 29 Nov 1988 04:26

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: Martyn Thomas on Mon, 28 Nov 1988 12:10

Re: Algol-68 down for the count
By: anw on Mon, 28 Nov 1988 15:44

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: William G. Hutchison on Tue, 29 Nov 1988 16:33

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: William G. Hutchison on Tue, 29 Nov 1988 14:05

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: Steve Stevenson on Tue, 29 Nov 1988 19:46

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: Richard A. O'Keefe on Tue, 29 Nov 1988 12:26

Re: Assembly or ....
By: Jeff Barber on Tue, 29 Nov 1988 15:35

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: Bruce Albrecht on Tue, 29 Nov 1988 15:03

Re: Reference for Object Oriented programming
By: John Hardin on Tue, 22 Nov 1988 18:42

Fewer Tears (was Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was:...))
By: Clay Phipps on Tue, 29 Nov 1988 06:50

Assembly For Real-Time / Re: Assembly or ....
By: Clay Phipps on Tue, 29 Nov 1988 06:33

ALGOL-68 implemented in C?
By: daniel on Tue, 29 Nov 1988 00:41

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Eng... on Tue, 29 Nov 1988 02:30

Re: Standardization (of FORTRAN, Ada, ect.)
By: Paul Stachour on Tue, 29 Nov 1988 02:09

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: William G. Hutchison on Mon, 28 Nov 1988 13:59

Re: Assembly or ....
By: William G. Hutchison on Mon, 28 Nov 1988 14:27

ALGOL 68 -- more thoughts
By: Ian Cottam on Sun, 27 Nov 1988 17:55

Re: Linkage Declaration (was Re: Standardization (of FORTRAN, Ada, ect.))
By: Henry Spencer on Mon, 05 Dec 1988 18:06

Re: Linkage Declaration (was Re: Standardization (of FORTRAN, Ada, ect.))
By: Larry Campbell on Sun, 04 Dec 1988 15:22

Linkage Declaration (was Re: Standardization (of FORTRAN, Ada, ect.))
By: Clay Phipps on Fri, 02 Dec 1988 06:36

Re: Assembly or ....
By: Unix Consultation Mailbox on Fri, 02 Dec 1988 22:15

Re: Assembly or ....
By: Richard A. O'Keefe on Fri, 02 Dec 1988 08:34

Re: Assembly or ....
By: Herman Rubin on Thu, 01 Dec 1988 13:10

Re: Assembly or ....
By: Unix Consultation Mailbox on Tue, 29 Nov 1988 18:25

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: Chris Thomson on Sun, 27 Nov 1988 08:05

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: keith on Fri, 25 Nov 1988 09:43

RE: The Definition of Standard ML.
By: Aaron Sloman on Sat, 19 Nov 1988 15:06

Alternatives to refs, was: Re: Algol-68 Best Since Sliced Bread ? / Re
By: Steven Ryan on Sat, 26 Nov 1988 01:48

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: Richard A. O'Keefe on Fri, 25 Nov 1988 23:56

Re: Standardization (of FORTRAN, Ada, ect.)
By: Steven Ryan on Sat, 26 Nov 1988 01:31

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: Robert Firth on Fri, 25 Nov 1988 21:51

Re: Standardization (of FORTRAN, Ada, ect.)
By: Scott Denham on Fri, 25 Nov 1988 09:12

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: Charles Lindsey on Thu, 24 Nov 1988 19:14

Re: Re: Assembly or ....
By: Stephen Crawley on Fri, 25 Nov 1988 01:44

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: Andrew Dwelly on Thu, 24 Nov 1988 08:04

Re: Standardization (of FORTRAN, Ada, ect.)
By: Eugene Miya on Fri, 25 Nov 1988 05:41

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: 99700000 on Thu, 24 Nov 1988 06:48

Algol-68 Best Since Sliced Bread ? / Re: Algol-68 down for the count /...
By: Clay Phipps on Thu, 24 Nov 1988 04:37

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: Steven Ryan on Thu, 24 Nov 1988 00:50

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: Martyn Thomas on Wed, 23 Nov 1988 10:41

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: John Woods on Wed, 23 Nov 1988 14:02

Re: Assembly or ....
By: wsmith on Wed, 23 Nov 1988 04:49

Re: Reference for Object Oriented Programming
By: Robert Redford on Wed, 23 Nov 1988 18:11

Re: Languages in the the REAL world -- Listing
By: Scott Gulland on Wed, 23 Nov 1988 06:43

Re: object oriented design decision
By: Peter Schachte on Thu, 24 Nov 1988 01:34

Re: object oriented design decision
By: Peter Schachte on Wed, 23 Nov 1988 21:24

Re: object oriented design decision
By: Barry Margolin on Wed, 23 Nov 1988 18:36

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: Jack Campin on Tue, 22 Nov 1988 09:45

Re: object oriented design decision
By: Erland Sommarskog on Mon, 21 Nov 1988 21:28

Re: object oriented design decision
By: Frode Odegard on Sun, 20 Nov 1988 23:04

Re: Languages in the the REAL world -- Listing
By: Stan Switzer on Tue, 22 Nov 1988 21:12

Re: object oriented design decision
By: -for inetd server command on Tue, 22 Nov 1988 20:47

Re: Languages in the the REAL world -- Listing
By: Scott Gulland on Tue, 22 Nov 1988 04:40

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: Richard A. O'Keefe on Tue, 22 Nov 1988 05:41

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: Eric Green on Tue, 22 Nov 1988 05:23

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: Robert Firth on Mon, 21 Nov 1988 21:08

Reference for Object Oriented programming
By: Robert Redford on Mon, 21 Nov 1988 19:21

Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
By: Nick Crossley on Tue, 22 Nov 1988 01:10