Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Many of those criticisms could apply to many revisions of many languages. (I can think of one popular exception.)

  • 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.

    • 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.

  • 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

  • About language comparisons, I strongly recommend reading

    http://www.cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/ [cowlark.com]

    • 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.

    • 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.

  • 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