Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!ukc!inmos!mph@lion.inmos.co.uk
From: mph@lion.inmos.co.uk (Mike Harrison)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Algol availability (was: Arrays in languages ...)
Message-ID: <4320@ganymede.inmos.co.uk>
Date: 2 Mar 90 11:11:42 GMT
References: <3528@tukki.jyu.fi> <14251@lambda.UUCP> <8836@boring.cwi.nl> <14255@lambda.UUCP> <8849@boring.cwi.nl> <1990Mar1.115346.17815@maths.nott.ac.uk>
Sender: news@inmos.co.uk
Reply-To: mph@inmos.co.uk (Mike Harrison)
Organization: INMOS Limited, Bristol, UK.
Lines: 25

In article <1990Mar1.115346.17815@maths.nott.ac.uk> anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) writes:

>	Algol 68 arrays are *so* *nice* to *use* compared with those in all
>the other popular languages (arbitrary slices, flex, lwb/upb operators,
>assignation, mode [type] of element, etc.), without significant loss of
>efficiency, that I've never understood why more modern languages didn't
>at least start from the same sort of model.

Here, here!

And don't forget the 'rowing' coercion.

It's a great pity that Algol 68 acquired the reputation of being 'hard', I
found it easy to learn and use.
(I was a bit confused the first time I found a jump, without 'goto' to a
label containing lots of space, when trying to maintain a program new to me!)

Mike,



Michael P. Harrison - Software Group - Inmos Ltd. UK.
-----------------------------------------------------------
UK : mph@inmos.co.uk             with STANDARD_DISCLAIMERS;
US : mph@inmos.com               use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMERS;