From: janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com   
      
   On 20.10.2025 11:42, BGB wrote:   
   > On 10/20/2025 3:02 AM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:   
   >> On 15.10.2025 20:00, BGB wrote:   
   >>> On 10/15/2025 5:26 AM, bart wrote:   
   >>>> On 15/10/2025 02:13, BGB wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> There was ALGOL, but both C and Pascal descended from ALGOL.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I've heard that before that C was somehow derived from Algol and even   
   >>>> Algol 68.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> But it is so utterly unlike either of those, that if it's from the   
   >>>> same family, then it must have been adopted.   
   >>>   
   >>> Idea is that it went ALGOL -> BCPL -> B -> C.   
   >>>    Going the other way, ALGOL was derived from FORTRAN.   
   >>   
   >> In which way do you think that Algol 60 was "derived from FORTRAN"?   
   >>   
   >   
   > Stuff online seems to say the backwards path went:   
   >   ALGOL 60 <- ALGOL 58 <- FORTRAN and Plankalkul   
      
   I don't see any *substantial* "derivation" from   
      Plankalkül to FORTRAN (55/57)   
   or from   
      FORTRAN (55/57) to Algol 58 or 60   
      
   The (only?) obvious ordering sequence here are their historic dates.   
      
   While there's in "Stuff online" (as you formulated) various graphical   
   representations of programming languages in their historic evolution   
   existing I've never found any evidence for a substantial FORTRAN ->   
   Algol connection, other than that they're running in Computers, and   
   that Backus also participated in the Algol definition. - So I'm still   
   curious on any language properties that would justify that relation!   
      
   (The other type of "dependency graphics" you typically find has three   
   independent roots; FORTRAN, Algol (58/60), and Cobol. - As far as my   
   own insight into these languages goes this makes much more sense.)   
      
   >   
   > Granted, FORTRAN is a somewhat different language from ALGOL.   
      
   A completely different thing, IMO...   
   Explicit variable declarations.   
   No restriction in expressions (compared to FORTRAN 55/57).   
   Flexible functions (as we know them now).   
   Recursive functions.   
   Block structure (recursive/hierarchical; stack orientation).   
      
   (Which all leads me more to the conclusion that FORTRAN's "influence"   
   might primarily have been as a paragon how to *not* define Algol.)   
      
   >   
   > Though, can note that a lot of the early languages, like early forms of   
   > FORTRAN and COBOL, were line-oriented and tended to use line numbers and   
   > requiring stuff to be in certain columns, ...   
   >   
   > Though, ALGOL and its descendants generally went over to a more   
   > free-form syntax.   
      
   Actually, one of Algol 60's characteristics was its strictly formal   
   (for the back then existing programming languages, modulo Plankalkül,   
   if you like) unprecedented BNF-syntax definition.   
      
   What you [badly] call "free-form syntax" is actually the effect of a   
   consistent, restriction free, non-"ad hoc", definition of the syntax   
   in a consistently stack-oriented design.   
      
   Janis   
      
   > [...]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)