Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages

Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> writes:

On 06/04/2024 22:54, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

But, WRT Algol 60 vs. Algol 68, these are quite different languages;
I wouldn't call the latter a new version.

>
I agree;  OTOH, WG2.1 accepted A68 as the "new" Algol.  The
instant question here was what an unadorned "Algol" means, and while
I can see an argument for saying that it shouldn't happen, I can see
no argument for saying that it, by default, refers to A60.

The question is not which language "Algol" *should* refer to.  Or
rather, that's a different question.  The question is which language
"Algol" refers to in real-world common usage.  In my (obviously not
universal) experience, "Algol" by itself never means Algol 68; it always
means Algol 60.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL

    ALGOL 68 is substantially different from ALGOL 60 and was not well
    received,[according to whom?] so reference to "Algol" is generally
    understood to mean ALGOL 60 and its dialects.[citation needed]

Since this confusion obviously exists, I suggest referring to "Algol 60"
and "Algol 68" explicitly.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */