Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!psuvax1!news
From: schwartz@groucho.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: comparison: was He's not the only one at it again!
Message-ID: <Fe40=-c1@cs.psu.edu>
Date: 2 Aug 90 16:15:28 GMT
References: <25630@cs.yale.edu> <58091@lanl.gov> <3478@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
	<25696@cs.yale.edu> <3503@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
Organization: Pennsylvania State University, computer science
Lines: 11
In-Reply-To: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au's message of 2 Aug 90 08:03:10 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: groucho.cs.psu.edu


In article <3503@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> 
 ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:

   Was Algol 68 the last
   standardised language to try to maintain the distinction between how a
   programming language was to be printed for human consumption and how it
   may be prepared for a computer in a machine-dependent way?  

Knuth's WEB does this to some extent.  Hmmm.  Does that make your
point or refute it? :-)