> I'm pretty excited for this

Aside from historical interest, why are you excited for it?

ofalkaed 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Personally, I think the whole C tangent was a misstep and would love to see Algo 68 turn into Algo 26 or 27. I sort of like C and C++ and many other languages which came, but they have issues. I think Algo 68 could develop into something better than C++, it has some of the pieces already in place.

Admittedly, every language I really enjoy and get along with is one of those languages that produced little compared to the likes of C (APL, Tcl/Tk, Forth), and as a hobbyist I have no real stake in the game.

	▲	Y_Y 40 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Is like to order a complementary question to the sibling one. What are you going to add to (/remove from?) Algol 68 to get Algol 26?
	▲	uecker 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I wonder about what you think is wrong with C? C is essentially a much simplified subset of ALGOL68. So what is missing in C?
	▲	inkyoto 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Whilst I think that C has its place, my personal choice of Algol 26 or 27 would be CLU – a highly influential, yet little known and underrated Algol inspired language. CLU is also very approachable and pretty compact.

▲

zik 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I've actually been toying with writing an Algol 68 compiler myself for a while.

While I doubt I'll do any major development in it, I'll definitely have a play with it, just to revisit old memories and remind myself of its many innovations.