Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| From: | "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:56:22 +0000 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | <49854345-f940-e82a-5c35-35078c4189d5@gkc.org.uk> 18-03-103 18-03-042 18-03-047 18-03-075 18-03-079 18-03-101 18-04-002 18-04-003 18-04-004 18-04-024 18-04-034 18-04-041 18-04-046 18-04-050 18-04-063 18-04-064 |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="59651"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | algol60, PL/I, history, comment |
| Posted-Date: | 16 Apr 2018 10:47:27 EDT |
| Accept-Language: | en-US |
| Content-Language: | en-US |
Robin Vowels wrote:
> Dijkstra's comment is nonsense.
I am curious, why do you say Dijkstra's comment is nonsense?
> [assuming that the quotation is literally correct]
The quote seems to be correct:
https://books.google.com/books?id=JdziBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=Finally,+although+the+subject+is+not+a+pleasant+one,+I+must+mention+PL/1,+a+programming+language+for+which+the+defining+documentation+is+of+a+frightening+size+and+complexity&source=bl&ots=5709gQOo9K&sig=AfrW2xb-WrcWKpmRAsfxufLS0F4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4od7S677aAhUHvFMKHSF3AcUQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=Finally%2C%20although%20the%20subject%20is%20not%20a%20pleasant%20one%2C%20I%20must%20mention%20PL%2F1%2C%20a%20programming%20language%20for%20which%20the%20defining%20documentation%20is%20of%20a%20frightening%20size%20and%20complexity&f=false
[Read the page or so around the quote and you'll see that Dijkstra
thought Algol60, of which he was one of the authors, was too
complicated, because BNF made it too easy to specify syntax. As far
as I can tell, he wanted extremely simple languages to make it easier
to prove programs correct. But that, of course, is another swamp.
-John]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.