Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!apple!bionet!agate!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcrware!jejones
From: jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Fortran 88
Summary: Algol 68 lacked I/O?  On the contrary...
Message-ID: <761@mcrware.UUCP>
Date: 23 Oct 88 15:28:19 GMT
References: <2045@unmvax.unm.edu> <44400025@hcx2>
Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Ia.
Lines: 11

In article <44400025@hcx2>, bill@hcx2.SSD.HARRIS.COM writes:
> In fact, that is the real reason Algol 68 died: it had "neat" features
> but not a well-designed set of _useful_ features (witness the absence of
> I/O).

I think Algol 60 is being confused with Algol 68 here.  Algol 68 most definitely
did have I/O, though there are those who thought it too convoluted.  I dare
say there are those who would disagree with the rest of the above characteri-
zation of Algol 68.

		James Jones