Sujet : Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages
De : ldo (at) *nospam* nz.invalid (Lawrence D'Oliveiro)
Groupes : comp.unix.shell comp.unix.programmer comp.lang.miscDate : 07. Apr 2024, 23:05:54
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <uuv1rh$30fkk$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
User-Agent : Pan/0.155 (Kherson; fc5a80b8)
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:43:04 +0100, Andy Walker wrote:
I can see no argument for saying that [“Algol”], by default, refers to
A60.
“Wirth-Hoare Algol”, a.k.a. “Algol-W” (the precursor of Pascal) was a
derivative of Algol-60, not Algol-68 (which didn’t exist yet).
“Burroughs Algol” was an implementation of Algol-60, not Algol-68.
Even in the 21st century, articles like
<
https://seattlewebsitedevelopers.medium.com/algol-the-language-that-influenced-the-future-cfec9a3e2a4c>
can say
Generally called ALGOL 60, ALGOL had three major updates ...