On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 12:05:01 -0500
Clem Cole <cl...@ccc.com> wrote:
> One can argue, why did Ken not just build something more like BCPL
> instead of B? I can not say, maybe the brevity of { } from PL/1 was
> more attractive than the Algol BEGIN/END style?
BCPL was, in any case, using $( $) and (later) { }. It never used
BEGIN/END.
And the major drawback of BCPL (which I love) was that it was word
oriented. Most machine architectures were not (OK, PDP-10...) One had
to use contortions, and a special % operator, to access bytes
efficiently.
_______________________________________________
Simh mailing list
Simh@trailing-edge.com
http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
