Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs

Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com>
Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:53:21 -0700

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[5 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) (2014-06-28)
Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs news@cuboid.co.uk (Andy Walker) (2014-06-29)
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: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2014-07-02)
Re: Algol history, was specifying semantics anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2014-07-03)
Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs monnier@iro.umontreal.ca (Stefan Monnier) (2014-07-03)
Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs genew@telus.net (Gene Wirchenko) (2014-07-03)
Re: Algol history, was specifying semantics ivan@ootbcomp.com (Ivan Godard) (2014-07-03)
Re: specifying semantics, was Formatting of Language LRMs gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2014-07-04)
[6 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:53:21 -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
Keywords: semantics, algol68, history
Posted-Date: 02 Jul 2014 23:06:28 EDT

On 6/30/2014 6:09 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 11:49:00 -0700, Ivan Godard <ivan@ootbcomp.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> BTW, I'm talking about the VWG in the *Revised* Report, which different
>> somewhat from that in the original report before the Great Schism.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> What was this, please?


When Algol68 was revised, there was a major split in the committee as
to the merits of the proposed changes, and even more about the use of
VWG as a language notation. The majority accepted the proposal, and
their work became the Revised Report and their spiritual descendant
populate IFIPS WG2.1 (Algol) to this day.


The minority, which included a number of luminaries such as Wirth and
Dijkstra, resigned from WG2.1, wrote scathingly about the Algol68
language, and formed a rump group that became WG2.3, which also
survives. Philosophically they wished to return to (a slightly cleaned
up) Algol 60; the linguistic descendants include Pascal and Ada.


These events, known as the Great Schism, occurred slightly before I
arrived. I attended a few meetings of both WG2.1 and WG2.3 and found
the character of the two groups very different: WG2.1 had a youthful
enthusiastic, and creative feel to it, while WG2.3 seemed to be
sourpuss, political, and puffed-up: an air of offense that someone
should enter the rarefied academe without proper obeisance. That was
my feeling; others no doubt would have felt differently, and in
fairness there were many of the participants who were every bit as
welcoming as any in WG2.1. BTAIM, I quit going to WG2.3, and
eventually was honored with my name in the Revised Report.


I went on to be a founder of the next Working Group in sequence
(WG2.4, then titled Machine-Oriented Languages). Despite staying
mostly in industry, I have since encountered that WG2.3 priesthood
"feel" in some (but mercifully few) other contexts, even as recently
as this year. I suspect readers have encountered the like.


Post a followup to this message

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