Ask HN: Does anybody else like the syntax of Algol 60?
I was reading the syntax of Algol 60, and I personally think that the syntax is very readable and easy to understand, and I am surprised that it isn't used as a template for new imperative programming languages in the same way the syntax of C is.
It also helps that most textbooks, when they need to describe an algorithm, use an Algol 60 kind of syntax as opposed to a C kind of syntax. Algol, and its formal EBNF description, is definitely the easiest language I have ever worked with. Burroughs, now Unisys, had an immensely powerful combination of true stack based hardware, a compact OS that supported parallel running across systems as well as programs, and various tailored flavours of Algol for comms, database and other use. A great development environment, decades ahead of its time. Alas C and Unix were cheaper and Burroughs never really understood that there was a market other than big tin users. But yes, even now when I write Ruby or Python or Go, I miss the clarity of Algol. Algol 60 lives on via Lisp. If you want to use it, Algol 60 an option with Dr. Racket: http://docs.racket-lang.org/algol60/ If you can tolerate a later version, there's Algol 68 Genie: http://jmvdveer.home.xs4all.nl/algol.html I wasn't aware of Dr. Racket supporting it. Thanks for the link! s/like/know/ Algol perhaps had the disadvantage of being far more popular among academics than among actual programmers. Perhaps for that reason Algol became the lingua franca of pseudocode, while C became the lingua franca of actual code. (I don't know if this is fair, but I've always had the impression that Algol was a bit like Ada in its time: respected by those who used it, but a bit too kitchen-sink to be popular among implementors.) When you look closely, C is a very academic programming language, and its academic influence can be seen in its design-level decisions. For instance, why does C differentiate between for loops and while loops? Because mathematically there's a natural partition between the two: for loops correspond to primitive recursion, and while loops correspond to total recursion. Here's another one: why are unions called unions? Because, if types are interpreted as sets, the C union is directly equivalent to the set theoretic union. Similarly, structures are directly equivalent to the Cartesian product (although they are not named appropriately). K&R were geniuses, not only in practical programming, but in the egg-head understanding of the mathematical theory behind programming languages. Algol was the first programming language I learned in college. I also used Ada professionally for years. I believe that Ada is not at all like Algol, even though Ada was nominally based on the Algol family of languages (including Pascal). I think of Ada as a monster of a language, more like PL/I than Algol, and very difficult to learn in its entirety. Algol is an elegant language, and I think you can learn enough of it to make use of its power in a fraction of the time you'd spend getting proficient with Ada. To be clear, I was talking more about how it was perceived at the time, not about how it actually was. (And of course, what was kitchen-sink-worthy in 1960 would be seen as ultracompact today.) But in any case, I bow to someone with actual experience.