Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:7000 comp.arch:21596
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!usenet
From: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Algol68
Message-ID: <1991Mar22.153944.1096@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 22 Mar 91 15:39:44 GMT
References: <1991Mar22.013748.4944@ico.isc.com> <3787@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU> <chl.668272227@m1> <9168@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 26


In article <1991Mar22.013748.4944@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>
>I felt learning about Algol68 (can't say I learned it; we didn't have a
>working compiler) did a lot for conceptual understanding.  It was one of
>the cleanest languages in terms of [amount of power] relative to [number of
>fundamental concepts] I've ever seen.  SO...
>
>> Agreed!!  Why are we not using Algol68 now when it is so much better
>> than other languages.  Is it, as I suspect, that people did not realise
>> how good it was?...
>

For a VERY simple reason: Real Programmers (TM) are not masochists
and seldom are Real Typists (TM) and simply HATE to type for the
most common construct in any program the loathsome, redundant,
hard to type, piece of shit:



   :=




Doug McDonald