anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) (03/01/90)
In article <8849@boring.cwi.nl> dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) writes: >[...]. Algol 68 is very nice, but not readily available [...]. How readily do you need it? It's available, sort-of, for all the computers I have had access to since 1972. For example, it's on the big ICL mainframes in our computing centre; it was on their VAXen (VMS) until they upgraded them and declined to pay for the compiler upgrade; it was on our PDP 11/{34,70,44} [a Unix V6 binary (only, sadly), that needed hand-tweaking to run on V7]; it's on this machine (Piaggio), a Sun 3/260 running SunOS 4.0.3. The last Algol Bulletin listed lots of compilers for lots of machines, including IBM and CDC, for example. The version I'm currently using is Charles Lindsey's 68S compiler for the Amsterdam Compiler Kit. So, if you can run ACK, you just have to speak nicely [enough] to CHL. ACK, of course, is very widely ported. (I *just* failed to get ACK/68S up on our 11/44 before they came to take it away [ho, ho, hee, hee, ha, ha, hum, hum] last October; curses!) The Malvern 68RS compiler is also highly portable; then there's 68C, Flex, etc. If CHL is reading this group, perhaps he could supply us with a more up-to-date listing of availability than was in the last AB? Algol 68 arrays are *so* *nice* to *use* compared with those in all the other popular languages (arbitrary slices, flex, lwb/upb operators, assignation, mode [type] of element, etc.), without significant loss of efficiency, that I've never understood why more modern languages didn't at least start from the same sort of model. -- Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK. anw@maths.nott.ac.uk
choo@cs.yale.edu (young-il choo) (03/02/90)
In article <1990Mar1.115346.17815@maths.nott.ac.uk> anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) writes:
anw> If CHL is reading this group, perhaps he could supply us with a
anw> more up-to-date listing of availability than was in the last AB?
I would like to strongly second this motion.
anw> Algol 68 arrays are *so* *nice* to *use* compared with those in all
anw> the other popular languages (arbitrary slices, flex, lwb/upb operators,
anw> assignation, mode [type] of element, etc.), without significant loss of
anw> efficiency, that I've never understood why more modern languages didn't
anw> at least start from the same sort of model.
I propose we start a "Vindicate Algol 68!" movement.
-- Young-il Choo
Yale Computer Science New Haven CT 06520-2158
choo-young-il@yale.edumph@lion.inmos.co.uk (Mike Harrison) (03/02/90)
In article <1990Mar1.115346.17815@maths.nott.ac.uk> anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) writes: > Algol 68 arrays are *so* *nice* to *use* compared with those in all >the other popular languages (arbitrary slices, flex, lwb/upb operators, >assignation, mode [type] of element, etc.), without significant loss of >efficiency, that I've never understood why more modern languages didn't >at least start from the same sort of model. Here, here! And don't forget the 'rowing' coercion. It's a great pity that Algol 68 acquired the reputation of being 'hard', I found it easy to learn and use. (I was a bit confused the first time I found a jump, without 'goto' to a label containing lots of space, when trying to maintain a program new to me!) Mike, Michael P. Harrison - Software Group - Inmos Ltd. UK. ----------------------------------------------------------- UK : mph@inmos.co.uk with STANDARD_DISCLAIMERS; US : mph@inmos.com use STANDARD_DISCLAIMERS;
chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) (03/03/90)
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) writes: >In article <8849@boring.cwi.nl> dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) writes: >>[...]. Algol 68 is very nice, but not readily available [...]. > If CHL is reading this group, perhaps he could supply us with a >more up-to-date listing of availability than was in the last AB? CHL is reading the group, but there is nothing useful to add to the list in AB52. As regards my own compiler, the Sun version is just waiting for me to parcel up the binaries, and clear copyright issues with Amsterdam. Later this year maybe, unless people lean on me to do it earlier. ALso a version for the Atari ST under GEM that needs just a little more work doing on it.
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) (03/05/90)
In article <1028@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes: >>In article <8849@boring.cwi.nl> dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) writes: >>>[...]. Algol 68 is very nice, but not readily available [...]. >> If CHL is reading this group, perhaps he could supply us with a >>more up-to-date listing of availability than was in the last AB? Or, better for me (and a few other people, I suspect), how about getting a galgol68 (i.e., an ALGOL-68 front-end for the GNU compiler)? Supposedly, a pascal front-end is mostly-done, so I would imagine that might be a good reference port (mix C and Pascal, and you're close 8-)). *sigh* Things to do if I had the time... -- Sean Eric Fagan | "Time has little to do with infinity and jelly donuts." seanf@sco.COM | -- Thomas Magnum (Tom Selleck), _Magnum, P.I._ (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.