On Mar 6, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Joe Niederberger <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Additionally there are issues of technological lock in. There are all sorts of investments in one technology (significantly training and support) and a "better" one has to practically guarantee that switching costs and a lot more will be repaid in short order. Somehow, COBOL was a success vis-a-vis FORTRAN. Why is that? Algol represented an advance that was far ahead of its market.
And another one I think was that the ALGOL team didn?t have a leader or a vision to go by. They seemed to be passing notes back and forth and there were a few different camps. They certainly introduced some great ideas, that found their way into later languages (prior art), but the languages that made it in history seem to have been created, at least initially, by one or two people with a vision. The ALGOL team(s) set out with a generic cause and some objectives, but no actual vision, while traditional language developers, even Backus with Fortran, started with a vision of the language first.