Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!hplabs!hao!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: Algol68: Quality lives
Message-ID: <1105@opus.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-Feb-85 02:20:10 EST
Article-I.D.: opus.1105
Posted: Thu Feb 21 02:20:10 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 25-Feb-85 04:38:04 EST
References: <840002@acf4.UUCP>
Organization: NBI,Inc, Boulder CO
Lines: 21

> I am a fan of Algol68 in its complete implementation. I feel this language
> adresses a lot of important language contructs which have been left half-
> baked in a lot of languages...

I think ALGOL 68 HAD a lot to offer.  Unfortunately, it now offers very
little.  The distinction lies in the difference between language definition
and language implementation.  The LANGUAGE had a lot to offer, but
programmers use IMPLEMENTATIONS of a language, not the language itself.
There were never any generally available implementations of ALGOL 68 in the
U.S. which were of usable quality for production software.  The few that I
ever saw were university-research toy systems, and unfortunately they
failed to evolve.

A good implementation can make a poor language bearable (with possible
exceptions for COBOL and a few others:-).  A poor implementation can make
the best of languages hard to use.  Lack of an implementation can kill any
language--almost no project can afford the lead time, let alone the effort,
to develop a compiler before it produces the intended product.
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
   ...Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip it's been.