Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: The joy of FORTRAN
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2024 10:54:36 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <861941042.749237430.675427.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
References: <pan$96411$d204da43$cc34bb91$1fe98651@linux.rocks>
 <5mqdnZuGq4lgwm_7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <vcub5c$36h63$1@dont-email.me>
 <1r0e6u9.1tubjrt1kapeluN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>
 <vcuib9$37rge$5@dont-email.me>
 <6tDIO.25202$afc4.3071@fx42.iad>
 <vcva2s$3bcrt$6@dont-email.me>
 <vd6thh$lf8o$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2024 19:54:37 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="20ef474fa749b5cdf37421ef054a9b68";
	logging-data="1433240"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18nyynqum0dbAftBYZ9/oKr"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.3.1 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jogI/T0D8I0TJrtpAYRrQjjeUrM=
	sha1:a0UI4EjZ/uuEpo6DCwNqpMXjBZ8=
Bytes: 2960

Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:
> On 24/09/2024 22:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> [...]
>> It didn’t help that Algol-60 had nothing resembling standardized I/O
>> facilities, whereas these were an integral feature of both Fortran and
>> COBOL.
> 
> 	This is true, but somewhat unfair if intended as a criticism of
> A60.  The idea in those days was that each computer had its own Autocode,
> each with its own idiosyncrasies [Fortran being, in essence, IBM Autocode]
> and very little commonality.  Algol was a project for the expression, in
> an agreed format, of algorithms.  Thus, if you wanted to invert a matrix,
> or construct a spanning tree, or numerically solve an equation, you took
> down your trusty CACM or CompJ, found an appropriate approved algorithm,
> and transcribed that into your favourite Autocode.  You weren't really
> expected to write complete programs in A60.  That changed later.
> 
>> This was remedied later in Algol-68, at the cost of adding a lot of
>> complexity.
> 
> 	Formats were the only complicated part of A68 [and were commonly,
> in the early days, not implemented].  That apart, the transput was easier
> than in most languages, ancient and modern.  The "print" routine took one
> parameter, a list of printable things [inc positioning], and printed them.
> If you didn't want the standard printing style, there were routines to
> turn numbers into strings in easy ways.

Like PL/I PUT LIST.

> 
> 	People complained about the size of the A68 reports, but that was
> before they saw the modern C standards, which still don't define C in the
> sort of formality that A68 achieved.
> 



-- 
Pete