Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!andy
From: andy@ecrcvax.UUCP (Andrew Dwelly)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
Message-ID: <654@ecrcvax.UUCP>
Date: 24 Nov 88 08:04:14 GMT
References: <388@ubbpc.UUCP> <16187@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <599@quintus.UUCP> <591@tuck.nott-cs.UUCP> <404@ubbpc.UUCP> <1916@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Reply-To: andy@ecrcvax.UUCP (Andrew Dwelly)
Organization: ECRC, Munich 81, West Germany
Lines: 24

In article <1916@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:

>More importantly, Algol 68 continues to inspire clean language designs - its
>concern for orthogonality is reflected in ML, most lazy functional languages,
>Smalltalk, PS-algol, FAD,... 

Design influences on languages is a subject on which we could speculate
endlessly. For example it seems to me that the influence of `Algol type
languages' on functional languages is pretty minimal. Their orthogonality
seems to arise fairly naturally from the power and elegance of the underlying
formalism (Lambda calculus).

Unfortunately, I've never been exposed to Algol-68, so I'm curious, was it
strongly or polymorphicly typed ? I know Strachey introduced the concept at
round about this time.

Andrew Dwelly                 
E.C.R.C.                                       UUCP: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!andy
ArabellaStrasse 17 			       or    pyramid!ecrcvax!andy
D-8000 Muenchen 81, West Germany 	       UUCP Domain:  andy@ecrcvax.UUCP

[Bump, Crash ......
 Listen; who swears ?
 Christopher Robin has fallen down stairs.]