Re: Algol history, was specifying semantics

Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com>
Thu, 03 Jul 2014 22:20:56 -0700

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[3 earlier articles]
Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs ivan@ootbcomp.com (Ivan Godard) (2014-06-28)
Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2014-06-29)
Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs ivan@ootbcomp.com (Ivan Godard) (2014-06-29)
Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs genew@telus.net (Gene Wirchenko) (2014-06-30)
Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs ivan@ootbcomp.com (Ivan Godard) (2014-06-30)
Re: Algol history, was specifying semantics anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2014-07-03)
Re: Algol history, was specifying semantics ivan@ootbcomp.com (Ivan Godard) (2014-07-03)
Re: Algol history, was specifying semantics wclodius@earthlink.net (2014-07-04)
Re: Algol history, was specifying semantics gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2014-07-07)
Re: Algol history, was specifying semantics ivan@ootbcomp.com (Ivan Godard) (2014-07-07)
Re: Algol history, was specifying semantics gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2014-07-07)
Re: Algol history, was specifying semantics gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2014-07-07)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 22:20:56 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
References: 14-06-010 14-06-023 14-06-025 14-06-027 14-06-030 14-06-031 14-06-035 14-07-001 14-07-005
Keywords: algol68, history, semantics
Posted-Date: 04 Jul 2014 09:52:41 EDT

On 7/3/2014 4:51 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:


>
> The story I read (IIRC in the HOPL paper on Algol 68 was that this
> split happened in 1965 or so, leading to Wirth and Hoare publishing a
> paper on Algol W in 1966. So that was not when Algol68 was revised,
> but when Algol 60 was revised. Wirth and Hoare wanted a relatively
> conservative revision, while the other wanted a revolutionary
> revision.


<snip history>


Thank you for the update. It was before my day, and I wasn't interested
in the politics, and so never quite got it straight.


I think one reason why formal semantics (and VWG) never became more
popular was that the minority, largely academics, controlled important
university posts and journal boards while the more industrial majority
did not. I know Klaus Wirth personally prevented publication of papers
that differed from the philosophical positions of the minority or that
reported work in the majority tradition or from industry. Academic
infighting can be quite vicious, and not just in the language world;
such politics led to the founding of SP&E, among other things.


Ivan



Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.