Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end From: Ivan Godard Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:53:21 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 39 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <14-07-001@comp.compilers> References: <14-06-010@comp.compilers> <14-06-023@comp.compilers> <14-06-025@comp.compilers> <14-06-027@comp.compilers> <14-06-030@comp.compilers> <14-06-031@comp.compilers> <14-06-035@comp.compilers> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: miucha.iecc.com 1404356788 26821 2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970 (3 Jul 2014 03:06:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 03:06:28 +0000 (UTC) Keywords: semantics, algol68, history Posted-Date: 02 Jul 2014 23:06:28 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:1291 On 6/30/2014 6:09 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 11:49:00 -0700, Ivan Godard > wrote: > > [snip] > >> BTW, I'm talking about the VWG in the *Revised* Report, which different >> somewhat from that in the original report before the Great Schism. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > What was this, please? When Algol68 was revised, there was a major split in the committee as to the merits of the proposed changes, and even more about the use of VWG as a language notation. The majority accepted the proposal, and their work became the Revised Report and their spiritual descendant populate IFIPS WG2.1 (Algol) to this day. The minority, which included a number of luminaries such as Wirth and Dijkstra, resigned from WG2.1, wrote scathingly about the Algol68 language, and formed a rump group that became WG2.3, which also survives. Philosophically they wished to return to (a slightly cleaned up) Algol 60; the linguistic descendants include Pascal and Ada. These events, known as the Great Schism, occurred slightly before I arrived. I attended a few meetings of both WG2.1 and WG2.3 and found the character of the two groups very different: WG2.1 had a youthful enthusiastic, and creative feel to it, while WG2.3 seemed to be sourpuss, political, and puffed-up: an air of offense that someone should enter the rarefied academe without proper obeisance. That was my feeling; others no doubt would have felt differently, and in fairness there were many of the participants who were every bit as welcoming as any in WG2.1. BTAIM, I quit going to WG2.3, and eventually was honored with my name in the Revised Report. I went on to be a founder of the next Working Group in sequence (WG2.4, then titled Machine-Oriented Languages). Despite staying mostly in industry, I have since encountered that WG2.3 priesthood "feel" in some (but mercifully few) other contexts, even as recently as this year. I suspect readers have encountered the like.