Re: I. M. John W. Backus
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 01:34:12 GMT
Message-ID: <o2lMh.13415$PV3.138621_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Bruce C. Baker wrote:
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:DYjMh.13388$PV3.138425_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
>>Bruce C. Baker wrote:
>>
>>>"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:mDjMh.13375$PV3.138160_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>>>
>>>>It's odd that the obit got things so wrong. Fortran is a monstrosity --
>>>>one of those abominable things that was just good enough. It's greatest
>>>>achievement was to show how not to write a compiler. Backus more than
>>>>redeemed himself a few years later by learning from fortran how to write
>>>>a compiler when he and Peter Naur came up with BNF.
>>>
>>>Compared to the languages and techniques we have today, the design and
>>>implementation of the original Fortran (and C, and Pascal, and ...) are
>>>pretty lame, but /compared to what preceded them/,
>>>they weren't half bad.
>>>
>>>Getting back on topic, one might even go so far as to say that SQL is the
>>>Fortran of its day.
>>>
>>>How about seasoning your future comments with a little dash of historical
>>>perspective, Bob?
>>
>>In what way did my comments lack historical perspective? Fortran is an
>>abominable monstrosity made all the more monstrous by its success. The
>>only good purpose it served was to teach Backus how not to make compiliers
>>so he could teach us all how to do it right.
>>
>>I am already aware SQL was disastrously successful too.
> > The Wright Brothers' original Flyer wasn't perfect either; that doesn't make > it a "monstrosity".
Having never described any Wright Brothers' product as monstrous, I fail to see the relevance.
[snip] Received on Thu Mar 22 2007 - 02:34:12 CET