Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!dik
From: dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
Message-ID: <7724@boring.cwi.nl>
Date: 21 Nov 88 20:17:54 GMT
References: <388@ubbpc.UUCP> <16187@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <599@quintus.UUCP> <591@tuck.nott-cs.UUCP> <404@ubbpc.UUCP>
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 21

In article <404@ubbpc.UUCP> wgh@ubbpc.UUCP (William G. Hutchison) writes:
 > In article <591@tuck.nott-cs.UUCP>, anw@nott-cs.UUCP writes:
 > > [ Andy Walker rebutted that his institution, Nottingham U, UK, used ]
 > > [ Algol68 A WHOLE LOT, and they liked it A WHOLE LOT ]
 > 
 >  Andy, I now know of 2 (two) institutions that ever tried to use Algol-68 at
 > all seriously, yours, and Math. Centrum in Amsterdam.
 >  If that is not an embarrassing debacle for a language design, what, pray tell,
 > is?  Ten million computer owners elected not to use Algol-68, and (order of
 > magnitude) 2 institutions chose to use it.
Strange that a (semi-commercial) corporation like NAG has produced a complete
numerical library for Algol-68 if only 2 institutes used it!  (And that
library had not very much followers here.)

To be true, there is one country where Algol-68 has been used a lot: the UK.
Of course the availability of compilers made a big difference (Algol-68C
from Cambridge etc.).
-- 
dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland
INTERNET   : dik@cwi.nl
BITNET/EARN: dik@mcvax