pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve) (08/18/88)
Noted in the copy of IEEE Micro that arrived in my mailbox today:
(p 76 -- in a review of True BASIC)
".... block-structured languages.... -- foreshadowed in Martin Richards'
Berkeley California Programming Language (BCPL)....."
Oh -- YEAH??
Hey, I know the reviewer lives in Berkeley, but so do I, and I'm not that
chauvinistic!! Well at least he got the name of the language's author
right.
[For those who don't yet know the real expansion of the abbreviation, it
means "Basic Cambridge Programming Language" (Cambridge, England, that is,
where Richards did most of his work), and, yes, it IS old enough to
"foreshadow" things.]
BTW on the subject of True BASIC, has anybody paid any attention to that
language on the Amiga (or elsewhere)? I've sort of ignored it, because
those five letters stir deeply unpleasant emotions in my subconscious.
-- Pete --rsine@nswc-wo.arpa (08/23/88)
Really, I thought BCPL stood for British Crummy Programming Language. Ran
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (08/24/88)
In article <3786@louie.udel.EDU> rsine@nswc-wo.arpa writes: >Really, I thought BCPL stood for British Crummy Programming Language. > No no. BCPL in and of itself is not necessarily cruddy. However, the compiler implementation MetaComCo used on the Amiga was extremely cruddy. BCPL means, therefore, British Compiler Programmers are Lousy. Schwab
phil@titan.rice.edu (William LeFebvre) (08/29/88)
In article <6906@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: > > No no. BCPL in and of itself is not necessarily cruddy. ++silly; BCPL is a man's language! And don't let anyone tell you that it has no typing. BCPL is, in reality, strongly typed. It has one type---the machine word---and it is strongly enforced! Besides, strong typing is for weak minds. --silly; William LeFebvre Department of Computer Science Rice University <phil@Rice.edu>