Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 14:45:23 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 29 Message-ID: <875xwshmoc.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: <20240330112105.553@kylheku.com> <87r0fp8lab.fsf@tudado.org> <87wmpg7gpg.fsf@tudado.org> <87plv6jv1i.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 21:45:28 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0efa4b53af11f7d4b5690e9314ba952a"; logging-data="3177497"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ardS6BW7f7WS0XyxbujF7" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:B7bEQKHllZQtQa/jhzUEPouQEWU= sha1:Ei4u+9YZwEeSMKdfIFICNkdiP+Y= Xref: csiph.com comp.unix.shell:24980 comp.unix.programmer:15725 comp.lang.misc:10397 Andy Walker 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 */