From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,86616b1931cbdae5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" Subject: Re: Is Ada likely to survive ? Date: 1997/08/01 Message-ID: <33E24422.181@gsg.eds.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 261839814 References: <33D005F2.E5DCD710@kaiwan.com> <33D3EC6E.7920@gsg.eds.com> <33DD01FA.247D@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> <5rnige$5d1@portal.gmu.edu> Reply-To: nospam@gsg.eds.com Organization: EDS MS Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-08-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Brian Rogoff wrote: > > That is sad, it seemed like a nice language on paper. While there were some flaws, ALGOL 68 was a fairly nice language. IMHO what killed it was a defining document that was unnecessarilly terse. The use of a W-grammar to define the language was reasonable; the paucity of elucidation was not. > I think that user definable binary operators are a very good thing, and > something I haven't seen in too many other languages. Yes, and there were several other nice features. > How close is SPITBOL to Icon? SPITBOL is basically SNOBOL 4 with a few minor things stripped out; it is quite different from Icon. I understand that there is a SPITBOL for the PC from Catspaw. > I know a little of the latter, none of the > former, although I take it they are related. Not surprisingly, SL5 and Icon were heavily influenced by SNOBOL 4. > -- Brian -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Senior Software SE The values in from and reply-to are for the benefit of spammers: reply to domain eds.com, user msustys1.smetz or to domain gsg.eds.com, user smetz.