Newsgroups:   comp.lang.apl
Path: watmath!watserv1!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!jtsv16!itcyyz!yrloc!intern
From:         dgil@ipsaint.ipsa.reuter.COM (Gillett, David)
Subject:      Re: APL2 question
Message-ID: <1992Mar18.202250.27221@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM>
Sender: intern@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM (Intern via QUADRAM)
Reply-To:     dgil@ipsaint.ipsa.reuter.COM (Gillett, David)
Organization: Reuters Information Services (Canada)
Date:         18 Mar 92 20:00:04 UT


-----------Message forwarded from IPSA Mailbox-------------


no. 6071725 filed 19.20.18  wed 18 mar 1992
from dgil
to   uclapl
subj Re: APL2 question
ref  6069649

     Language comparisons frequently deteriorate into religious wars....

AM > Andrew Mullhaupt, andrew@rentec.com
SS > Sam Sirlin, sam@kalessin

AM > There are not many FORTRAN derivatives that are not called FORTRAN, but
AM > then perhaps you mean Algol derivatives.

SS > I thought Fortran[sic] came before Algol, but I could easily be wrong.  I
SS > meant languages like C, Pascal, Basic[sic], PL1[sic], etc.

Most FORTRAN derivatives are called 'BASIC'.

Algol was, I think, pretty much a contemporary of FORTRAN.  C and Pascal meet
the criteria for 'Algol-like' languages, and are clearly derived from that root
PL/1 tried to combine features of FORTRAN and COBOL in an Algol-like structure;
I think it's more derived from Algol than from FORTRAN.

The principle features of Algol were repeatedly hacked onto FORTRAN, and
finally retrofitted into the language spec.  One might almost fairly
characterize "modern" FORTRAN as an "Algol derivative".

                                      Dave Gillett


-----------------------------------------------------------
This posting is forwarded from an internal Reuters mailbox.
No statement or opinion contained herein should be taken as
being Reuters policy, or even as being approved by Reuters,
in any way.
