Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!ll-xn!oberon!sdcrdcf!csun!polyslo!dorourke
From: dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Algol 60 vs Algol 68 (was "stack machines (Burroughs)")
Message-ID: <3198@polyslo.UUCP>
Date: 12 Jun 88 03:09:13 GMT
References: <1521@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <1532@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <476@pcrat.UUCP> <2868@louie.udel.EDU> <370@dlscg1.UUCP> <3147@polyslo.UUCP> <10064@tekecs.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke)
Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo
Lines: 20

In article <10064@tekecs.TEK.COM> andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes:
>There really isn't any "beyond" to Algol 68 since the 1975 Revised
                         ^^^^^^

  I should've made myself clearer, by Beyond in the original statment I
meant the languages that have been developed since Algol.  Unisys is
committed to this dead language, I'm not saying I agree with this committment,
but if they had to make a change Algol 68 might be easier than another
langauge, although I don't know.
  Silly me I assumed that name of a language indicated it's compatible, you're
right I only have a passing aquaintance with Algol 68, and I improperly
assumed it would be compatible.

  However the original postings wasn't to debate Algol vs. Algol it was to
point out that Uniys, for better or worse {probably worse}, is committed
to a language that's over 20 years old, which isn't good for the company.

-- 
David M. O'Rourke

Disclaimer: I don't represent the school.  All opinions are mine!