Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!rutgers!bellcore-2!bellcore!pyuxp!towernet!taichi!haim
From: haim@taichi.uucp (24122-Haim Kilov(3786)m000)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Algol
Message-ID: <91@towernet.UUCP>
Date: 10 Aug 90 16:42:05 GMT
References: <1990Jul21.004616.649@Stardent.COM> <388@e2big.mko.dec.com> <25630@cs.yale.edu> <2404@l.cc.purdue.edu>
Sender: netnews@towernet.UUCP
Reply-To: haim@taichi.UUCP (24122-Haim Kilov)
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Lines: 11

Algol-60 (and even 68) - as somebody remarked - was a great improvement
over its successors. Starting with decent control structures, clean programs,
_much_ better language specifications (recall BNF?), including clear
separation between "syntax" and "semantics", etc.
Of course, Algol(s) did not have i/o, overflows, etc., but these clearly
are implementation-specific properties. (BTW, the Algol68 format definitions
do exist, but are too complex... - so there is a good reason for not
including such things in the language kernel).
Separate your concerns - don't put kernel and implementations into one box.
Haim Kilov
haim@bcr.cc.bellcore.com