Re: Function name problem

[dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu (David Starner)]

On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:31:38 GMT, David A. Cobb <superbiskit@home.com> wrote:
>Actually, David, I did mean '83(?).  I doubt there was ever a compiler
>for that one: I don't think it got beyond the pages of CACM.  Algol'68
>was a pretty close ancestor of the Pascal/Ada family of syntax's.  As I
>said, the 1980's attempt to update it seemed to get pretty bogged down
>in just how radical it could be - with very formal semantics.

I'm not sure I'd describe Algol 68 as a close ancestor of Pascal/Ada. 
Pascal was not derived from it, though it may have been affected by
Wirth's dislike of that language. From everything I've read, radical,
with very formal semantics, describes also Algol 68.

>Since even the unsuccessful branches are part of any evolutionary tree,
>it wouldn't surprise me if some of the lessons from that influenced the
>Ada design team.  Algol was also more popular in Europe than in the US,
>and the designers could have been closely familiar with the work.

It would suprise me. The Algol 83 work would have been completed at the
same time Ada 83 was, and generally failed works don't provide much 
inspiration until they've failed and you can do a decent post-mortem.

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
If you wish to strive for peace of soul then believe; 
if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire.
   -- Friedrich Nietzsche