[dllthomas]

Algol60 could never be taken seriously as a mainstream language, lacking Algol-like syntax.

[AnimalMuppet]

Algol60 lacked Algol-like syntax?

In one sense, that's almost tautologically impossible. I presume you mean "like the other Algols", which makes it a non-absurd statement, but... could you expand or clarify what you mean here?

[dalke]

I believe it's a joke. Gold isn't a gold-like substance because it is gold. Algol isn't an Algol-like language because it's Algol.

If so, I don't believe it's a good joke.

[dllthomas]

It's a joke, but not the one you thought.

The joke is that the syntax of Algol didn't actually look all that much like what people mean when they say "Algol-like syntax". No curly braces anywhere to be seen.

[dalke]

As my introduction to Algol-like languages was through Pascal, the joke completely passed me by.

[dllthomas]

I could see that putting you in a place where encountering people misusing "Algol-like" to mean C-like, when trying to distinguish from something more like Algol, would be extra noticeable and annoying.

Likely you have just been lucky :)

[dalke]

I hang around computational chemists. They wouldn't say "Algol-like" in the first place. So, double lucky!