Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!vanvleck!uwmcsd1!jgd From: jgd@csd1.milw.wisc.edu (John G Dobnick,EMS E380,4142295727,) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Algol 60 vs Algol 68 (was "stack machines (Burroughs)") Message-ID: <6011@uwmcsd1.UUCP> Date: 13 Jun 88 18:15:11 GMT References: <3198@polyslo.UUCP> Sender: daemon@uwmcsd1.UUCP Lines: 27 From article <3198@polyslo.UUCP>, by dorourke@polyslo.UUCP (David O'Rourke): > > 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. Which is all well and good for the "Burroughs" side of the house. On the "Univac" side of the house [What! You say they call themselves "Sperry" now?] things are slightly different. In a massive mind-set (and code) migration from assembler to a high-level language on the 1100 (now 2200) series machines, Univac created PLUS (Programming Language for Univac Systems) as something suitable for systems- programming type work. It has advanced since its early days, but had its origins in ALGOL 60. In fact, the first PLUS compiler was a modified JOVIAL compiler (from what I hear, and I believe *this* source). Hmmm... sort of looks like *both* sides of the Unisys house now use ALGOL 60. (Is a :-) needed here?) -- John G Dobnick Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee UUCP: !uwvax!uwmcsd1!jgd INTERNET: jgd@csd4.milw.wisc.edu "Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation, and is thus a source of civilized delight." -- William Safire