gvcormack@watmum.UUCP (Gordon V. Cormack) (08/02/86)
> ... Unfortunately, I/O libraries are not something that can be > tacked on later. I/O affects the definition of the language. This is > one of the most serious problems with the languges in the Algol > tradition. There is a tendency to think I/O is a detail unfit for > computer scientists, which can be left to the "standard prolog". Algol 68 treats I/O at great length. I think it is more in the "algol tradition" than Pascal, which is best characterised as the anti-algol. Algol 68, unlike Pascal, is sufficiently extensible to do a reasonable (if not great; but then C is hardly great) job of defining routines like printf. For example, the following routine gives something like what is needed: MODE PRINTABLE = UNION(INTEGER, REAL, ... ) PROC printf = ( [] CHAR f, [] PRINTABLE ) VOID : BEGIN ... END printf(" %d hi there %f \n", (123, 0.123)) Over the past decade, we have seen endless discussions comparing brain-damaged languages like Pascal and C, and the design of the Ada, all without learning from the successes (and mistakes) of Algol 68. -- Gordon V. Cormack CS Department, University of Waterloo uucp: { allegra, decvax, ... }!watmath!gvcormack csnet: gvcormack%watmum@waterloo cdn: gvcormack@mum.waterloo.cdn