rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (09/25/85)
> >> Algol 68 is the right language for scientific programming. Rich operators, > >It has everything C does except available implementations, interfaces to > > Come on ! What about: > Two portable implementations : ALGOL 68C and ALGOL68 68RS working on IBM > and DEC kit, > One manufacturer supported full (including PAR BEGIN END & SEMAPHORES) > implementation : CDC > A usable subset on PDP11 '68S ALGOL 68C, as I saw it many years ago, was not portable in any useful sense of the word. I know; we tried but were overwhelmed with problems before we ever got out of the starting gate. At the time I saw it, it was also clearly not a production compiler. That's been more than a decade ago; I don't know what's happened since then but a perusal of the open literature doesn't turn up glowing reports of success for ALGOL 68C or any other implementation of the language (except possibly the early success with 68R at the RRE). I've never seen any information for an implementation supported by any commercial firm. In fact, it's been years since I've seen any information on ANY generally-available implementation. NOTE what I'm saying--I haven't SEEN it, and I'm speaking particularly about the U.S. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Supposedly S. Bourne developed an ALGOL 68 compiler for UNIX circa V7...but what happened to it? Believe me, I'd LOVE to be swamped with mail from people telling me that there's a good ALGOL 68 system available and how could I be such an idiot as not to know about it! I'm not about to write my own damn compiler, but I'd be willing to port one and I'd love to be able to use one. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...If you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind.