Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 15:07:04 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <87il0ugn7b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <20240329104716.777@kylheku.com> <uu8p02$uebm$1@dont-email.me> <20240330112105.553@kylheku.com> <uudrfg$2cskm$1@dont-email.me> <87r0fp8lab.fsf@tudado.org> <uuehdj$2hshe$1@dont-email.me> <87wmpg7gpg.fsf@tudado.org> <LISP-20240402085115@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <LISP-20240402091729@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <wrap-20240402092558@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <uui7hf$3gona$1@dont-email.me> <uuj1o5$3pvnq$1@dont-email.me> <87plv6jv1i.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <wwv5xwyifq8.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> <if-20240404121825@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <uund4g$ugsb$1@dont-email.me> <uup8ul$1fr2t$1@dont-email.me> <uuq0a3$1lcgf$1@dont-email.me> <uuruuc$26nd1$1@dont-email.me> <uus4fe$27r8r$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 22:07:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0efa4b53af11f7d4b5690e9314ba952a"; logging-data="2446187"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/gtjitVo8k4XW5diVwZDil"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0CTquprkwiA/W1bYnMfTM5/nK/0= sha1:Hfa0JSMQ8dAFOE5xiI34k8te0+Y=
Xref: csiph.com comp.unix.shell:24966 comp.unix.programmer:15709 comp.lang.misc:10383

Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> writes:
> On 06/04/2024 17:57, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> I named it always explicitly as "Algol 60" and "Algol 68".
>> But at some instance of time I read somewhere that "Algol"
>> would "now" refer to Algol 68, so I changed my habit.

That doesn't match my experience.

> 	Quite right.  Algol 60 died, for all practical purposes,
> half a century ago.  Algol 68 may be a niche interest, but it is
> still a nice language, and its [dwindling] band of adherents and
> practitioners still use it and prefer it to C and other more
> recent languages.

I've never heard "Algol" by itself used to refer to Algol 68, which had
enough changes to be essentially a different language, and one which
didn't really replace Algol 60 (though it was clearly intended to).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL> agrees.

The relative popularity of Algol 60 vs. 68 doesn't necessarily change
what "Algol" means.

[...]

-- 
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 */