3 ms·
Algol60 could never be taken seriously as a mainstream language, lacking Algol-like syntax.
by dllthomas 10y ago
Algol60 could never be taken seriously as a mainstream language, lacking Algol-like syntax.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoAlgol60 lacked Algol-like syntax? In one sense, that's almost tautologically impossible. I presume you mean "like the other Algols", which makes it a non-absurd statement, but... could you expand or clarify what you mean here?
- dalke 10y agoI believe it's a joke. Gold isn't a gold-like substance because it is gold. Algol isn't an Algol-like language because it's Algol. If so, I don't believe it's a good joke.
- dllthomas 10y agoIt's a joke, but not the one you thought. The joke is that the syntax of Algol didn't actually look all that much like what people mean when they say "Algol-like syntax". No curly braces anywhere to be seen.
- dalke 10y agoAs my introduction to Algol-like languages was through Pascal, the joke completely passed me by.
- dllthomas 10y agoI could see that putting you in a place where encountering people misusing "Algol-like" to mean C-like, when trying to distinguish from something more like Algol, would be extra noticeable and annoying. Likely you have just been lucky :)
- dalke 10y agoI hang around computational chemists. They wouldn't say "Algol-like" in the first place. So, double lucky!