From: david.brown@hesbynett.no   
      
   On 28/10/2025 03:00, Janis Papanagnou wrote:   
   > On 27.10.2025 21:39, Michael S wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> Lua is not Algol 68.   
   >>   
   >> Correct.   
   >> Lua is a useful programming language.   
   >   
   > (I have no stakes here. Never used it.)   
   >   
      
   It's usefulness is demonstrated by its widespread use.  It is mostly   
   used as a scripting or automation language integrated in other software,   
   rather than as a stand-alone language.  It is particularly popular in   
   the gaming industry.   
      
   >> Algol 68 is a great source of inspiration for designers of   
   >> programming languages.   
   >   
   > Obviously.   
   >   
   >> Useful programming language it is not.   
   >   
   > I have to read that as valuation of its usefulness for you.   
   > (Otherwise, if you're speaking generally, you'd be just wrong.)   
   >   
      
   The uselessness of Algol 68 as a programming language in the modern   
   world is demonstrated by the almost total non-existence of serious tools   
   and, more importantly, real-world code in the language.  It certainly   
   /was/ a useful programming language, long ago, but it has not been   
   seriously used outside of historical hobby interest for half a century.   
   And unlike other ancient languages (like Cobol or Fortran) there is no   
   code of relevance today written in the language.  Original Algol was   
   mostly used in research, while Algol 68 was mostly not used at all.  As   
   C.A.R. Hoare said, "As a tool for the reliable creation of sophisticated   
   programs, the language was a failure".   
      
   I'm sure there are /some/ people who have or will write real code in   
   Algol 68 in modern times (the folks behind the new gcc Algol 68   
   front-end want to be able to write code in the language), but it is very   
   much a niche language.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)