Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!vanvleck!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!ucbvax!unisoft!gethen!isaac
From: isaac@gethen.UUCP (Isaac Rabinovitch)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Algol 60 vs Algol 68 (was "stack machines (Burroughs)")
Summary: Is Algol 68 Wirth it?
Message-ID: <949@gethen.UUCP>
Date: 19 Jun 88 23:12:19 GMT
References: <1521@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <1532@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <476@pcrat.UUCP> <1188@unisoft.UUCP>
Organization: There's Unix there in Oakland
Lines: 18

In article <1188@unisoft.UUCP>, paul@unisoft.UUCP (n) writes:
>   Probably the main success story from the Algol 68 effort was Pascal, Wirth
> was one of Algol 68's designers (he was on the committee) and in Pascal he
> implemented all the things in Algol 68 (plus a few extras) that were easy
> to implement using the existing technology, the result was a language that
> flourished ....
Hm, it's been a long time since I read about this, but I think you have
your history wrong.  I understand that Wirth thought Algol 68 was a
disaster, but was overruled the the rest of the committee.  He then went
off and did Algol W, Pascal, and Modula, languages which use concepts he
couldn't sell to the Algol 68 commitee.  Correct me if I have this
wrong.
  I used to love reading the Algol 68 report.  All those complicated,
interlocking concepts (the version I read arranged the chaptersin a
2-dimensional matrix for easy cross reference) has a lovely, terrible
charm.  Rather like the Indian Juggernaut ceremony.

Isaac Rabinovitch.