Re: Algol history, was specifying semantics

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Mon, 7 Jul 2014 05:49:01 +0000 (UTC)

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[5 earlier articles]
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: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 05:49:01 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
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 14-07-015
Keywords: algol60, history, comment
Posted-Date: 07 Jul 2014 09:53:07 EDT

William Clodius <wclodius@earthlink.net> wrote:


(snip)
> As time went it became obvious by that the 1966 deadline would not be
> met so the effort was renamed Algol X, with features not currently
> accepted for Algol X documented as planned for a followon language Algol
> Y. Wirth and Hoare's report that served as the basis of Algol W was
> their idea of a minimal Algol X that could meet the 1966 deadline, if
> accepted by the comittee. But Algol W kept call by name, while adding
> record data types and Hoare's select case, so it was too large revision
> for the minimalists, and was not as efficient in implementation as the
> majority of revisionists wanted. Wirth and Hoare remained in the
> comittee until the first draft was published for comment hoping that
> something would happen to change Algol 68 back to Algol W.


Reminds me, I am still intersted in finding the OS/360 Algol W
compiler. Source or load module.


There is a not-yet-debugged source listing on bitsavers, and I
(or someone) could type it in, but it would still need to be
debugged. At least that is how I understand it.


-- glen
[As far as I know, the machine readable source was lost. Even with a copy
of the source, you'll need a copy of PL360, the Algol-flavored assembler it
was written in. -John]


Post a followup to this message

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