Re: I. M. John W. Backus
Date: 21 Mar 2007 20:28:53 -0700
Message-ID: <1174534133.480142.70760_at_y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 21, 11:57 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> It's odd that the obit got things so wrong. Fortran is a monstrosity --
> one of those abominable things that was just good enough.
I seem to remember a quote-oid from Backus along the lines of, "we
didn't realise we were designing a language - we were building a
compiler", but I can't remember the exact attribution now.
> 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.
Hrmmmr... BNF came about because Backus and Naur both thought they
understood a section of one of the original reports on the IAL
perfectly, but it turned out they had different ideas about what it
meant. Backus presented Backus "Normal" Form, and he and Naur worked
on it more to come up with Backus Naur Form.
For me, Backus' real crowning achievement was his 1977 Turing Award
paper on FP, here - http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs242/readings/backus.pdf
> Fortran should be a side-note to BNF and not vice versa.
>
> (BNF is a very big contribution--more than enough to share.)
I find myself fairly forgiving of Fortran, because of its
"originating" status. Was it better than Speedcode or similar
systems ? Maybe, maybe not - but (much like SQL later) because it came
from IBM it got traction and proved an important point. (I'm less
forgiving of C because by that time *they should have known better*.)