Re: Algol history, was specifying semantics

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]

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