use Perl

• The Audacity of Change (Score:1)

  by chromatic (983)

  Many of those criticisms could apply to many revisions of many languages. (I can think of one popular exception.)
  • Re: (Score:1)

    by Aristotle (5147)

    Was that jab really necessary now, chromatic? :-)
    • Re: (Score:1)

      by chromatic (983)

      Naming the particular language I had in mind would make it unnecessary! As it is, everyone has to guess. (It's not Python 3.)
• ... not happy ... (Score:1)

  by thickas (5805)

  an accusation of being Algol 68 is almost as perjorative as being PL-1 like or Ada like.

  It is not in any way complimentary.

  Alogol 68 is not in any way remembered fondly by people wishing to write code partly because even if you like the ideas there were so few implementations that it was higly unlikely they would run.
  • Re: (Score:1)

    by masak (6289)

    an accusation of being Algol 68 is almost as perjorative as being PL-1 like or Ada like.

    It is not in any way complimentary.

    Thanks for letting me know.

    I didn't write the post because I thought Algol 68 was an admirable or ideal language. I wrote it because some of the sentences in the Wikipedia article felt like they could have been pulled from a Wikipedia article about Perl 6. There wasn't really any other value judgement involved. I have next to zero knowledge about the legacy of Algol 68.
• Perl '67 (Score:1)

  by Dominus (464)

  I had a similar experience about fifteen years ago. I was reading a description of a late-sixties-era programming language and thought "wow, this sounds just like Perl".

  Here is the description:

  PERL (Practical Extraction and Report Language) is a programming language developed with the intention of combining features of commercial languages (such as COBOL) and scientific languages (such as ALGOL). Commercial applications with their emphasis on efficient handling of large volumes of data have led to the de
• On Go (Score:2)

  by rafael (2125)

  About language comparisons, I strongly recommend reading

  http://www.cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/ [cowlark.com]
  • Re: (Score:1)

    by masak (6289)

    Heh. I was already reading that when you wrote the comment. :)

    The author says a lot of the things in the concluding sections than I did in my post. I recommend the whole text to anyone interested.

    Right now I'm reading Tanenbaum's introduction [uni-dortmund.de] to Algol 68. It's also pretty good.
  • Re: (Score:1)

    by Aristotle (5147)

    I had a discussion about that article with a knowledgeable friend who was not at all impressed… though unfortunately I don’t remember much of what he said.
• Not surprising /bin/sh looks like Algol-68 (Score:2)

  by merlyn (47)

  Steve Bourne (Bourne Shell) was one of the authors of Algol 68. You should see the source code! It's all ALGOLIZED!

  --
  

  • Randal L. Schwartz
  • Stonehenge