4 ms·
That ALGOL-68 was hated by almost everyone who like previous ALGOL versions is not to be discounted. ALGOL-68 was loved by people who would have never used ALG
by kick 7y ago
That ALGOL-68 was hated by almost everyone who like previous ALGOL versions is not to be discounted.
ALGOL-68 was loved by people who would have never used ALGOL to begin with (and they didn't start doing so with ALGOL-68).
It was difficult to write compilers for, slow & far too complex.
- ThomasBHickey 7y agoLooking back at ALGOL-68, it looks like comparatively small language compared to many of our current languages, e.g. Java, C++ and Python. I loved the definition of it, but never got to use it.
- kick 7y agoThat modern languages are even worse does not make ALGOL-68 good, in my opinion. It's understandable why people would like it, though, compared to modern languages.
- eeZah7Ux 7y agoIt's very similar to Go. And like go, it's loved by people who don't know ALGOLs and hated otherwise.
- amyjess 7y agoThat's definitely an uncommon comparison. Go is basically Oberon with C-ish syntax, and Oberon is probably the Wirthiest of Wirth languages, basically everything Wirth thought was good distilled into a single language. And given that Wirth's whole family tree of languages exists because he objected to Algol 68 so hard he walked out on Algol...
- kick 7y agoIt's a pretty common comparison, actually. I think the first "big" article on Go was one comparing Go to ALGOL-68. http://cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/ http://cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/
- pjmlp 7y agoOberon-2 merged with Limbo to be more precise, actually. Although Oberon not only had Oberon-2 as successor, it had Active Oberon, Oberon.NET, Zonnon, Component Pascal and Oberon-07, the later with multiple revisions.