Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Recursion, Yo
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:34:40 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <uvudfv$352i4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uut24f$2icpb$1@dont-email.me> <uv5lgl$s6uj$1@dont-email.me>
 <uv61f6$v1jm$1@dont-email.me> <uv68ok$11080$1@dont-email.me>
 <uv7a8n$18qf8$3@dont-email.me> <uv867l$1j8l6$1@dont-email.me>
 <_zSRN.161297$m4d.144795@fx43.iad> <20240411075825.30@kylheku.com>
 <r8TRN.114606$Wbff.54968@fx37.iad> <uva6ep$24ji7$1@dont-email.me>
 <uvah1j$26gtr$1@dont-email.me> <uvao71$27qit$1@dont-email.me>
 <uvb9r4$2c31v$1@dont-email.me> <uvcing$2kbfj$6@dont-email.me>
 <uveft2$346sv$1@dont-email.me> <uvf7vs$3911c$3@dont-email.me>
 <8734roqmdb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <uvhm89$3s6na$2@dont-email.me>
 <uvi79d$2ubl$1@dont-email.me> <uvjs4c$ebsr$1@dont-email.me>
 <20240416231134.00004066@yahoo.com> <86edb1xtjf.fsf@linuxsc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 20:34:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d4e5c5a145d29e3635cfa4bb0d7129a7";
	logging-data="3312196"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+l0se9x9MJZXSdfVJLzpdn"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xMPuoI82lSDpysTAlNKlwj3k9A8=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <86edb1xtjf.fsf@linuxsc.com>
Bytes: 4917

On 19/04/2024 16:26, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 20:36:58 +0200
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Algol 68 and C are so different that mutual understanding might be
>>> difficult depending on personal background, focus, and fantasy. :-)
>>
>> Interesting take.
>> I never learned Algol-68, but from pieces of info that I occasionally
>> got I was always thinking of it as rather similar to 'C'.
>> Both languages originated from common ancestor (Algol-60) and changed
>> it in similar directions, e.g. blurring the line between operators and
>> expression, making function pointers first class citizen, allowing
>> declaration of variables at block scope.
>> I think, in the past, when I remembered more about Algol-68, I had seen
>> more similarities.
> 
> Algol 60 already had block scope declarations.
> 
> Algol 60 may not have had (pointer to) function/procedure variables,
> but it did allow procedure identifiers as arguments to a procedure
> call, and procedure variables are an obvious generalization.
> 
> Relative to Algol 60, C slightly expanded what forms are allowed in
> expressions, but mainly as a way to simplify the language syntax:
> 
>    * no separate cases for assignment / function call statements
> 
>    * so for()'s are more general and don't need specializing
> 
> In contrast, in Algol 68 the notion of "expression" is expanded
> to allow the possibility of arbitrary variable declarations and
> loops (IIANM; certainly I am not an expert on Algol 68).
> 
> Furthermore there are some significant differences between C and
> Algol 60:
> 
>    * Algol allows nested functions (aka procedures), but C doesn't
> 
>    * Algol has call by name, C is strictly call by value
> 
>    * Arrays are first class types in Algol, but not in C (and C
>      has pointer arithmetic as an essential part of the language,
>      which TTBOMK is not the case in any Algol-derived language)
> 
>    * Algol is "strict" whereas C is "lax" - for example, in Algol
>      the controlling expression of an 'if' statement must be a
>      'Boolean expression', whereas in C it's just any expression
> 
> To me, Algol 68 represents an expansion and extension of the
> Algol 60 language philosophy, whereas C represents a deliberate
> departure from that philosophy;  not necessarily a radical
> departure, but a departure nonetheless.  Certainly C has some
> similarities to Algol 68, but I wouldn't say C and Algol 68
> are similar languages, only that they have a few similarities.


I can't see any connection between Algol68 and C; I'm surprised at 
people who say they do.

C was put together together as a systems language to do a job, not to 
implemement some esoteric concept of a language that few could understand.

I understood it was based on languages like B and BCPL.

Actually there is a closer connection between my systems language, 
created 10 years after C, which was also created for purely practical 
purposes, and Algol68, largely because I borrowed much of its syntax 
(including the interchangeability of statements and expressions).

But I would be first to admit that the similarity stops there.