I think of p6 as more like the Ada of the 21st century. Whether it was a success or not depends on whom you ask, but it had similar criticisms and delays. And was commissioned to be the US federal govt's answer to Algol 68. Which may not have been a big hit, but it had a profound effect on language design, so "failure" may be overstating it.
On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, Timothy S. Nelson <wayl...@wayland.id.au> wrote: > On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Carl Mäsak wrote: > > > Meanwhile, the uncanny similarities between Perl 6 and Algol 68 > continue to strike me: > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL_68> (]): > ] ALGOL 68 [...] was conceived as a successor to the ALGOL 60 programming > ] language, designed with the goal of a much wider scope of application and > more > ] rigorously defined syntax and semantics. > > > Algol 68 is notorious as a failure. Let's hope things are different > here. > > :) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > | Name: Tim Nelson | Because the Creator is, | > | E-mail: wayl...@wayland.id.au | I am | > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK---- > Version 3.12 > GCS d+++ s+: a- C++$ U+++$ P+++$ L+++ E- W+ N+ w--- V- PE(+) Y+>++ PGP->+++ > R(+) !tv b++ DI++++ D G+ e++>++++ h! y- > -----END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- > -- Mark J. Reed <markjr...@gmail.com>
