
Ask HN: Does anybody else like the syntax of Algol 60? - smokeapotamus
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.<p>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.
======
fallingbadgers
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.

------
brudgers
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>

~~~
smokeapotamus
I wasn't aware of Dr. Racket supporting it. Thanks for the link!

------
breadbox
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.)

~~~
inetsee
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.

~~~
breadbox
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.

