Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!otter.hpl.hp.com!otter!sfk
From: sfk@otter.hpl.hp.com (Steve Knight)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Re: Algol68 (and standards diatribe)
Message-ID: <2400042@otter.hpl.hp.com>
Date: 17 Apr 91 11:43:08 GMT
References: <1991Mar28.011025.16337@ico.isc.com>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.
Lines: 27

I vaguely recall the original posting on Algol68 wondering why the language
didn't receive more acclaim and interest.  I can't help but think that this
string is as good an explanation as I've ever seen.

In short, the language is full of complex rules for the convenience
of the programmer (such as the coercion rules) whose implications are 
inobvious.  It would have performed a better service if the designers had
focussed on keeping it small, clean, and easy to learn.

My two favourite examples from Algol68 are (1) the dual syntax for control
constructs and (2) the limitations on procedures being returned as results.
Before I get zapped by solid flame -- let me add that there's nothing 
intrinsically wrong with either or these decisions.  But they, amongst a 
cast of thousands, contributed to a general perception of complexity
and a lack of orthogonality.

If these two decisions are compared with those of Pascal, a much more
"successful" languages by my reading, we notice that the lack of a dual
syntax is not lamented (although other aspects are) and that the issue
of procedure-results was solved by simply forbidding them!  Both examples
are much, much easier to learn -- even though one might think they are
decisions of an inferior quality.

Anyway, I was really amused by the general feel of the string & the
original question.

Steve