Talk:ALGOL

There are currently various ways of doing syntax highlighting of ALGOL 60 in wikipedia, eg.

begin integer i; real y; real array a[0:10];
real procedure f(t); real t; value t;
  f := sqrt(abs(t))+5×t↑3;
for i := 0 step 1 until 10 do read(a[i]);
for i := 10 step -1 until 0 do
  begin y := f(a[i]);
        if y > 400 then write(i, "TOO LARGE")
        else write(i,y);
  end
end

Plain text is unacceptable. The above would never happen in real life because there are no reserved words in Algol60. Variables are allowed to contain spaces (which are stripped by the compiler's pre-processing line reconstruction stage) and keywords may be run together, eg 'BEGIN' 'INTEGER' MYINTEGER; could equally acceptably be written as 'BEGININTEGER' MY INTEGER;

'begin' 'integer' i; 'real' y; 'real' 'array' a[0:10];
'real' 'procedure' f(t); 'real' t; 'value' t;
  f := sqrt(abs(t))+5*t^3;
'for' i := 0 'step' 1 'until' 10 'do' read(a[i]);
'for' i := 10 'step' -1 'until' 0 'do'
  'begin' y := f(a[i]);
        'if' y > 400 'then' write(i, "TOO LARGE")
        'else' write(i,y);
  'end'
'end'

Keywords could be stropped in any system-dependent manner. Single quotes. HASH marks. Two single quotes. Quote before but not after (Non-alpha terminates the keyword). Percent before (Ditto). Double quotes.

begin
   integer I;
   real Y;
   real array A[0 : 10];
   real procedure F(T);
     value T;
     real T;
   F := SQRT(ABS(T)) + 5 × t ↑ 3;
   for I := 0 step 1 until 10 do READ(A[I]);
   for I := 10 step -1 until 0 do
     begin
       Y := F(A[I]);
       if Y > 400 then WRITE(I, "too large") else WRITE(I, Y);
   end
end

The style above is more appropriate when there are complex relations etc using characters not in the Flexowriter set.

   begin integer i; real y; real array a[0:10];
   real procedure f(t); real t; value t;
     f := sqrt(abs(t))+5*t^3;
   for i := 0 step 1 until 10 do read(a[i]);
   for i := 10 step -1 until 0 do
     begin y := f(a[i]);
           if y > 400 then write(i, "TOO LARGE")
           else write(i,y);
     end
   end

Acceptable, but underlining was more common in representing Algol-60 in print than bolding.

begin integer i; real y; real array a[0:10];
real procedure f(t); real t; value t;
  f := sqrt(abs(t))+5×t↑3;
for i := 0 step 1 until 10 do read(a[i]);
for i := 10 step -1 until 0 do
  begin y := f(a[i]);
        if y > 400 then write(i, "TOO LARGE")
        else write(i,y);
  end
end

Just plain ugly.

Ideally either of the following work perfectly a) <code lang="algol60"> OR b) <syntaxhighlight lang="algol60">, but without forcing one to '''annoint''' with quotes. The tag <syntaxhighlight lang="pascal"> works surprisingly well and leads the way. Can someone can give me a hint on how to improve/extent [[mediawiki]]'s <syntaxhighlight lang="algol60"> to correctly handle algol60. Any hints welcome and I will give it a go..

Don't! Pascal style assumes reserved keywords, which as explained above Algol60 does not use. The formatter should take stropped keywords as input.

ALSO A) Algol60 predates ASCII-1967, indeed ASCII-1963 has the arror (↑) and in place of the ASCII-1983 circumflex accent (^) so (me thinks) lines like:

 f := sqrt(abs(t))+5*t^3;

Should read:

 f := sqrt(abs(t))+5×t↑3;

that's right, but it depends on whether you are describing a reference syntax code sample or a machine syntax one. In the latter it is only correct within the context of some specific named system and I/O device (eg the Flexowriter on the Atlas)

ALSO B): The comment:

• (The way the bolded text has to be written depends on the implementation, e.g. 'INTEGER' (including the quotation marks) for integer.)

I know this stropping applies to ALGOL 68, does it also apply to ALGOL 60? - Yes, it did. Also CORAL66 and IMP.

In the source code for SOAP, you'll see that in KDF9 Kidsgrove Algol (at least in 1969), keywords were stropped using '%' - see the original SOAP source code. The associated paper on SOAP lists the source using underlined keywords, but the source link is to the unaltered original code.

ALSO C): Can someone confirm that ALGOL 58 had no standard File/IO? (As with ALGOL 60).

NevilleDNZ 08:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the best way to publish information on ALGOL is to use the publication standard, viz keywords in bold. I can't see any reason to consider using the particular coding convention of any particular machine implementation unless one is specifically writing about that implementation. Using the official ALGOL 60 publication standard seems to me to have 3 advantages: (1) it IS the standard, (2) it is consistent with the majority of information published on the language when it was in common use, (3) it is the most readable: at least it is to me. JamesBWatson 13:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the GeSHi - Generic Syntax Highlighter:

• GeSHi Home page
• MediaWiki talk:Geshi.css

NevilleDNZ 23:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As you've probably already noticed, MediaWiki talk:Geshi.css has some information on how to modify GeSHi. I've been nagging some admins off and on to either fix GeSHi or open up the process so ordinary people can fix it, but so far no luck. Basically, to add a new language you'll need to get an account on , write a PHP file called "algol60.php" based on one of the existing ones like "pascal.php", and then get it included in the official SyntaxHighlight_GeSHi distribution (otherwise Wikipedia won't use it).

This bug indicates that in the future, <source lang="algol60"> (or any other unrecognized lang) might gracefully degrade to <pre>, which would at least be a small step in the right direction. Until then, using the old standard method of <code> is the right thing to do.

By the way, 5×t↑3 looks silly in Courier New, the font most readers use to view code. I'd stick with the ASCII caret ^ in place of the arrow, at least. Just my two cents. --Quuxplusone 02:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

ALGOL-60 wasn't tied to ASCII, not any form of it. As the article mentions, it was viewed, at least in part, as a publication language. The standard doesn't give any guidance for how to represent its character set in a computer. Bold keywords are just one part of that problem. "Stropping" is one solution: the original EL-X1 and EL-X8 implementations by Edsger Dijkstra used underlining, with the help of Friden Flexowriters with a custom character set. When the Technical University Eindhoven moved from EL-X8 to Burroughs, they modified the stock Burroughs ALGOL compiler to use quoted keywords. Burroughs used the reserved word approach, with no stropping.

Another oddball in ALGOL-60 was the "scientific notation" numbers: one version had subscripted "10" as the marker: 0.3141610+1 but most implementations used the Fortran "E" notation.

ALGOL-68 addresses these issues explicitly; it does not prescribe a single answer but the Report suggests several approaches. For example, for keywords both stropping and the reserved word approach are mentioned.

Paul Koning 14:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I did get to write one ALGOL program on the B5500 before it went away, punched on an 026 keypunch. As many characters weren't on the keypuch there were signs on the wall for how to multipunch them. Gah4 (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Someone proposed that ALGOL object code merged to ALGOL!? Who!? Why!? ... OK, I can say: I think it's a good idea, since I believe that ALGOL object code never was an independent concept discussed in any other context than the ALGOL language, but that is what I believe, I'm not old enough to have been in actual contact with ALGOL except one University laboration in the then still not deceased Simula. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 08:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It belongs in a piece on intermediate codes along with others such as UNCOL, P-Code, Z-Code, CINTCODE, JANUS, I-Code, OCODE, CIL, and maybe JVM.

No objection to a link to it though. 129.113.28.125 —Preceding comment was added at 18:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

HERE. It is a true and valid Algol-60, since it implements name parameters and the thunking required for Jensen's device to work. From 1990. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I previously (December 2007) placed a statement here that the link given was dead. I have now discovered that the link has been resurrected, and once again does lead to a copy of NASE Algol60. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted Simula in the Algol list. It's a true and faithful Algol 60, despite it's name. It has much more, true, but that is related in C++ and Simula. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

True ALGOL 60s specification and implementation timeline, too many red links to dialects and implementations of varying quality. My proposed improvements:

1. the table shall try to list the most important implementations: which may mean that the implementation has a big theoretical interest, or was used extensively, or [add your own estimates here],
2. links to implementations articles should be provided only if it is heavily needed/wished, or already exist.

Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I made Category:ALGOL 60 dialects for this. I'm a little confused on what should be regarded as "ALGOL 60 dialect". If all the criteria below are fulfilled, the language is certainly an ALGOL 60 dialect:

1. Name parameters with thunking and Jensen's device,
2. More than C-ish type control,
3. Var declarations within the begin ... end frame - not outside, like the Pascals,
4. Declaration defaults, such that arrays by default are reals,
5. Procedural parameters.

But if a language doesn't fulfill all these, then it might still be a true Algol 60. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My observations are inserted:

1. Name parameters with thunking and Jensen's device,

This only existed in Algol 60. Only Algol 68 went for a more functional language approach with procedures as parameters, and pass by reference.

2. More than C-ish type control,

Array declarations in Algol-60 were more akin to what is found in Fortran IV. Only in Algol-68 could one create a new type. Indeed when Borne joined AT&T he was the catalyst for removing the PL-I style declarations in C which were replaced with ALGOL 68C style declarations, including the void.

3. Var declarations within the begin ... end frame - not outside, like the Pascals,

Algol-60 was kind of a hybrid, with procedure parameters before the begin, and local variables after. Algol-68 by contrast allowed declarations anywhere within a block. Much like what C99 finally adopted in May 2000 for local declarations.

4. Declaration defaults, such that arrays by default are reals,

Only Algol-60 had this, Algol-68 strictly enforced strong typing. Oddly Algol-68 also had strong-dynamic typing with the form of Tagged unions. BTW: tagged unions have recently been reintroduced to the D programming language.

5. Procedural parameters.

Here I am thinking all languages have Procedural parameters, except for maybe cobol and perl :-)

IMHO: Between Algol-60 and Algol-68 where appears to have been a major divergence into two separate threads. Basically:

• ALGOL X thread (included initially Algol W, then Pascal, Modula etc) championed by the Algol-60 compiler writers.
• ALGOL Y thread (included Algol 68, then C and C++ &al) championed by assorted people with spare CPU cycles.

Algol-X and Algol-Y were prototype specifications that fueled some rather intense "discussion" between the designers and the incumbents. eg - from which you can draw your own conclusions.

Maybe we could have Category: ALGOL 60 dialects and Category: ALGOL 68 dialects for Algol-X and Algol-Y decedents respectively.

• (Basically we need some kind of Girl or boy test to help differentiate X from Y "divergents". :-)

NevilleDNZ 23:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

One other thought, in the case of ALGOL 68, there are "compiler based" dialects - basically Extensions to the official language (recommended extensions, and improvised extensions)- or compilers that designed to be the official "sub-language". These are quite different to languages influenced by ALGOL 68. This leaves me a "in the air" about the meaning of "dialect". Any hints? NevilleDNZ 00:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Current text of the page claims that Burroughs systems used and use Elliott Algol. Does anyone know where this claim came from? It's incorrect per se -- I've been programming in Burroughs Algol since 1972, attended over 40 conferences of CUBE and UNITE (the Burroughs and Unisys user groups), and have known many Burroughs/Unisys software engineers, and have never heard such a thing mentioned. I never used a B5000, which would be the system referenced by the "as far back as 1961" remark, but the snippets of Elliott Algol shown look quite different from anything handed down to later generations of MCP systems and certain look nothing like the Burroughs Algol which I first encountered in 1972.

However, I realize that some link may have been intended but badly stated, so I don't want to just wipe it out without asking first. --Paleolith (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I figured out that the Elliott link was added by Danakil, who made about twenty edits to the page over a few days along with huge numbers of edits to other pages, and who disappeared from Wikipedia a couple of years later. Some of his edits were good and others bad. The other bad ones appear to have been corrected since then. Someone posted a note on Danakil's discussion page questioning the Burroughs/Elliott link, but didn't follow up on it. That post was unsigned, but it appears to have been created by the same person who corrected the spelling of Elliott (not Elliot) here at a later date.

I have revised this paragraph to remove the false linkage between Elliott and Burroughs, and also to try to make the entire paragraph clearer. The paragraph is a bit odd as it does not really fit in this section, but it's important in the history of ALGOL and doesn't have another good place that I can see.--Paleolith (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Years later...I have removed the tag suggesting a merge. Elliot and Burroughs Algol compilers were different products from different companies in different countries, we don't need to combine them. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone posting anonymously removed the sentence "Note: Throughout its effective life, the name of the programming language ALGOL was always presented in all-uppercase letters, and this is the practice adopted here." Since no reason was given, I undid the removal. If someone has a reason to remove the sentence, please give a reason -- I'm not defending the text, just saying that I don't see any reason to delete it and that no reason was given.--Paleolith (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring this. It turns out to be false. I have added a real Note citing sources that show both Algol and ALGOL are used. --Jtir (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no mention of (UK) ICT/ICL 1900-series Algol, mid-60s. I have a manual for it, price 12/6.

Nor of EE/EELM/Elliott? 4100 Algol.

There was Algol for the Elliott 903/905.

There was also, from Oxford, an Algol for the PDP/LSI-11, after mid-70s; the language system was written in a subset of Algol, and the subset compiler could compile itself and the full compiler (the machine was too small for the full copiler to compile itself). For compiler read interpreter?

82.163.24.100 (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Reworked the table, removing the blank column, adding the most successful implementations and removing EMIDEC as it essentially had no info. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In the History section it says "It specified three different syntaxes: a reference syntax, a publication syntax, and an implementation syntax. The different syntaxes permitted it to use different keyword names and conventions for decimal points (commas vs periods) for different languages.".

Would it not be better to say something like "It specified the syntax of the language but allowed for differing representations of that syntax imposed by the limited character sets available at the time"?

There is only one syntax of the reference language. All else is just a representation of that syntax, surely? 86.152.116.59 (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

For a language so influential (C/C++, Java, etc all claim descent) there's not much in here to explain why it was groundbreaking. Just some cryptic comments about the 'failings of FORTRAN' and so on. I think this page needs a paragraph or two on why it was - for its time - so advanced.

While translating and editing an article on the Olivetti Elea , I ran across references to their Algol-derived language apparently called "Palgol" or "Palgo" (sources differ), some time before Olivetti left the mainframe business. If this existed and was an Algol language, it perhaps should be documetned and added to the table. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed... Add some specific details, esp anything that makes it unique. Also you may also consider posting details to http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/ALGOL/algol60impl/

You might alternatively consider adding Palgol to ALGOL 60 (or ALGOL 68) if it is clearly Algol 60 (or Algol 68) derived.

Note: Algol 68 influenced languages tend to have the reversed (and somewhat reverent) closing brackets, eg: for ~ while ~ do ~ od, if ~ then ~ else ~ fi & case ~ in ~ out ~ esac

NevilleDNZ (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't be mentioned in page header that Algol was influenced by FORTRAN ? At least there is sentence "Algol was designed to avoid some of the perceived problems with FORTRAN" - this clearly shows to me that Algol was built upon the foundation of FORTRAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.32.222.96 (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Section should probably mention the "back arrow" character used for assignment by Burroughs (looked something like <- ). This character was replaced by underscore on many terminals. Peter Flass (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Th Regnecentralen implementation was for the Gier computer - Geodetisk Instituts Elektron Regnemaskine. A large number of Giers were sold in Eastern Europe in the 1960s and 1970s (when American companies were not allowed to sell there), and the solid Algol implementation was one of its important selling points. Don Wagner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.106.240.125 (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's algorithmic not algebraic, but not gonna put any time into it. I've always said and will continue to say ALGOrithmic. Lycurgus (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

ALGOL or IAL? It was going to be Algebraic (and thus IAL) but this was never used and so the name actually used was Algorithmic, thus ALGOL. There was never an I-Algorithmic-L. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary report: international algebraic language --Northernhenge (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes and no. Confirmed that the CACM article says Algebraic in the title but after that it only refers to "algorithmic language". In fact, "International Algorithmic Language" was the common usage as for instance in "JOVIAL". But I do see that 'Algebraic' was commonly used including in Schwartz's paper on Jovial. Now know that Algebraic is formally correct. Lycurgus (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This part of the lede really needs a reference:

it was arguably the most successful of the four high-level programming languages with which it was roughly contemporary: Fortran, Lisp, and COBOL.

This is because ALGOL influenced so many languages after it, including C and Pascal. However, Fortran is still in common use in scientific computing; COBOL is also still used for mainframe applications (although I doubt that many new applications are written in it); Lisp variants have revivals every so often.

I don't see the claim in the source for the previous section either, though I may have missed it in skimming the text. In fact, that source even quotes Reynolds as saying that the Pascal family is not ALGOL-like, and neither is ALGOL 68, with which the lede concurs when it states that 'in general "Algol" means Algol 60 and dialects thereof'. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, my god does this article suck. It contains virtually no detail about constructs in the language, then it launches into a follow on, Algol 68, which was completely different than original Algol and was a complete failure besides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8A02:7201:99A8:929F:905E:BC9C (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the Algol family. Members of the family have their own articles so to read about "original Algol" see ALGOL 58 or ALGOL 60 depending on which one you mean. Perhaps the lede needs to be clarified to make the purpose of this particular article more explicit. Certainly the second paragraph needs some work. I can see that "It was arguably the most successful of the four high-level programming languages" could certainly lead to confusion about the purpose of this article. --Northernhenge (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I've just re-read paragraph 2 and IMHO it should be deleted or moved further down the article but I won't do that without consensus, especially as it's many years since I studied this. --Northernhenge (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ALGOL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927014141/http://hopl.murdoch.edu.au/showlanguage.prx?exp=1807 to http://hopl.murdoch.edu.au/showlanguage.prx?exp=1807
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100616084711/http://hopl.murdoch.edu.au:80/showlanguage.prx?exp=7288&language=Chinese%20Algol to http://hopl.murdoch.edu.au/showlanguage.prx?exp=7288&language=Chinese%20Algol

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ALGOL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070616201227/http://homepages.cwi.nl/~dik/english/codes/stand.html to http://homepages.cwi.nl/~dik/english/codes/stand.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ALGOL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100525044658/http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/books/papers/124.pdf to http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/books/papers/124.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Lisp using list structure, used for code and data, code is data, had code blocks before Algol did. 2603:8001:9500:9E98:0:0:0:9A7 (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The Lisp 1.5 Programmer's Manual says:

The LISP 1 .5 program feature allows the user to write an Algol-like program containing LISP statements to be executed.

That is, Lisp's prog code blocks seem to have been inspired by Algol, not the other way around.

That S-expressions, representing code, are also list structure, representing data, is completely orthogonal to that. --Macrakis (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Did ALGOL have the idea of storage class? (Which needs an actual page.) I think some had the ability to declare static variables, otherwise automatic allocation. But I dont' have any reference for that. Gah4 (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there any reliable source for the information presented in the figure titled "Family tree of the Algol, Fortran and COBOL programming language dynasty"? I don't see any source given here or on the Commons page for the figure.

If there is no reliable source for this figure, it should not be used. 73.15.85.62 (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)