Talk:ALGOL X
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Why this article?
[edit]OK, there once was a language called Algol X, and one implementation existed, but this article, and a couple of others, such as ALGOL W, should be merged into a general article Proposed ALGOL successors, where their features can be contrasted with another making an interesting reflection on theory vs. practice in PL design. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed why? I have read several of the links, and other sources on the history and development of Algol (60-68), and I think this article is not even right. This link although merely a record with a short abstract, seems to me to indicate that AED-0 was an extended Algol 60 derivative (possibly having features that were suggested for Algol X.) As I understand the history of Algol, Algol X was the "working name", for the successor of Algol 60, and there were two candidates for Algol X, one by Wirth (with Hoare and Seegmüller?), which eventually became Algol-W, and one by van Wijngaarden, which eventually was selected by IFIP, and named Algol 68. So perhaps this page should be replaced by a redirect to Algol 68. --Lasse Hillerøe Petersen (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)