++ devils

[Richard Heathfield]

Nick Keighley said:

so Alogol-68 was uninteresting...

Since I've only just heard of it, after its (presumably) 38 years in the
field, I guess it can't have been all that earth-shattering.

 

[Richard Tobin]

so Alogol-68 was uninteresting...

[/QUOTE]

Since I've only just heard of it, after its (presumably) 38 years in the
field, I guess it can't have been all that earth-shattering.

Though it was not as widely-used as it might have been, and its more
obvious innovations have not all been successful (the two-level
grammar in particular), it has had a wide-ranging influence on later
programming languages. In particular, C's type system clearly owes a
lot to Algol-68.

-- Richard

 

[Chris Dollin]

Since I've only just heard of it, after its (presumably) 38 years in the
field, I guess it can't have been all that earth-shattering.

Though it was not as widely-used as it might have been, and its more
obvious innovations have not all been successful (the two-level
grammar in particular), it has had a wide-ranging influence on later
programming languages. In particular, C's type system clearly owes a
lot to Algol-68.[/QUOTE]

Rather than, say, Pascal, or Algol W, or Hoare's section of /Structured
Programming/?

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Richard Tobin said:

Since I've only just heard of it, after its (presumably) 38 years in the
field, I guess it can't have been all that earth-shattering.

Though it was not as widely-used as it might have been, and its more
obvious innovations have not all been successful (the two-level
grammar in particular), it has had a wide-ranging influence on later
programming languages. In particular, C's type system clearly owes a
lot to Algol-68.[/QUOTE]

I had heard of Algol-68. What I had not heard of was Alogol-68. I first
presumed that the one was a typo for the other but, if that were the case,
then two people had made the same typo, which seemed unlikely. A quick
Google search revealed sufficient hits to suggest that it might be a
separate language (although I didn't read the hits terribly closely). If
so, though, it was certainly one of which I had never heard.

 

[pete]

C's type system clearly owes a lot to Algol-68.

So says DMR:

http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/chist.html

 

[pete]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

I had heard of Algol-68. What I had not heard of was Alogol-68.
I first presumed that the one was a typo for the other but,
if that were the case,
then two people had made the same typo, which seemed unlikely.

I frequently copy words from posts that I reply to.

A quick Google search revealed sufficient hits to suggest
that it might be a separate language
(although I didn't read the hits terribly closely).

Results 1 - 10 of about 76 for Alogol-68
Results 1 - 10 of about 17,600 for teh enb

Teh enb.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

pete said:

I frequently copy words from posts that I reply to.


Results 1 - 10 of about 76 for Alogol-68
Results 1 - 10 of about 17,600 for teh enb

Teh enb.

Yeah, fair point. My reasoning was as follows:

(1) it's probably a typo.
(2) hang on - what if it isn't? I'll look a right idiot for assuming it is.
(3) okay, quick Google search
(4) weird - it does appear to exist after all (I actually searched on
"Alogol" and got over 300 hits)
(5) post
(6) step (2) suddenly doesn't look so smart

 

[Chris Dollin]

Rather than, say, Pascal, or Algol W, or Hoare's section of /Structured
Programming/?

OK, I've followed pete's link, and DMR explicitly credits A68 with the
motivation for the type structure of C.

 

[pete]

pete said:


Yeah, fair point. My reasoning was as follows:

(1) it's probably a typo.
(2) hang on - what if it isn't?
I'll look a right idiot for assuming it is.
(3) okay, quick Google search
(4) weird - it does appear to exist after all (I actually searched on
"Alogol" and got over 300 hits)
(5) post
(6) step (2) suddenly doesn't look so smart

In my opinion, pretending not to understand,
seems to be one of your ways
of protesting perceived defficiencies of clarity of expression.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

pete said:

In my opinion, pretending not to understand,
seems to be one of your ways
of protesting perceived defficiencies of clarity of expression.

I don't know what you mean!



Disingenuous replies are indeed part of my stock-in-trade. On this occasion,
however, it was genuine ignorance. Straight up, guv!

 

[pete]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Disingenuous replies are indeed part of my stock-in-trade.
On this occasion,
however, it was genuine ignorance. Straight up, guv!

"Alogol-68" ?!!!!!!

Nobody else even noticed that it was misspelled!

 

[Dik T. Winter]

> Richard Tobin said: ....
>
> I had heard of Algol-68. What I had not heard of was Alogol-68. I first
> presumed that the one was a typo for the other but, if that were the case,
> then two people had made the same typo, which seemed unlikely.

It appears that was indeed the case.

> A quick
> Google search revealed sufficient hits to suggest that it might be a
> separate language (although I didn't read the hits terribly closely).

I have looked on quite a few on those pages, and in *all* cases it was a
typo (ALOGOL 60, ALOGOL W, ALOGOL 68...).

 

[Richard Tobin]

I had heard of Algol-68. What I had not heard of was Alogol-68.

I had not noticed the misspelling.

-- Richard

 

[pete]

pete said:


I don't know what you mean!



Disingenuous replies are indeed part of my stock-in-trade.

So is sticking to your story.
I almost forgot that.

 

[Al Balmer]

"Alogol-68" ?!!!!!!

Nobody else even noticed that it was misspelled!

You left me out of the survey.

 

[Old Wolf]

In my opinion, pretending not to understand, seems to be
one of your ways of protesting perceived defficiencies of
clarity of expression.

My friend coined a word for this, a few years back:
"willencuthery" (noun). In fact it applies to any situation
of pretending not to understand (eg: Why are you left-
shifting cout?)

 

[Joe Smith]

My friend coined a word for this, a few years back:
"willencuthery" (noun). In fact it applies to any situation
of pretending not to understand (eg: Why are you left-
shifting cout?)

I would claim that willencuthery has many sources. One topical version of
it elicits comment. Another highlights what we don't understand ...yet.
joe

 

[jjf]

This is a behavior observed in MSVC and this is predictable. The
compiler is going to give me the same result whenever I execute this
code. This is predictable. What do you mean by undefined when I am able
to define it. Do not write such irresponsible mails based on your
limitations and based on loose statements like "undefined". I do not
care what is undefined as long as it works the way it is expected to
for a specific compiler.

Then please provide your full name so I can be sure never to employ
you.

I encourage people to investigate this
behavior further and disseminate and find applications for such
expressions. I reiterate pls. do not write such replies.

I encourage people not to waste their time in such a useless and
nonsensical manner. Spend the time learning to write correct C.