[nickpsecurity]

Hyperbole and reference will probably be worked on in next one. ALGOL mostly existed on paper or in complex compilers on expensive systems. The "computer" that is the EDSAC is not on that list. So, they would have to build their own ALGOL... a difficult thing anyway in that period... using a machine and process like this:

https://youtu.be/6v4Juzn10gM?t=3m41s

Can you imagine trying to make a robust, fast compiler for such a weak machine in tape batches on that weak machine? I could understand them giving up with BCPL as a useful result on that machine. The cost-benefit analysis of using a PDP-11 like an EDSAC is opposite. Wirth et al showed you could do better. C inventors just liked BCPL. I'd understand if they used BCPL to bootstrap a Modula-2 or other ALGOL subset with good design. Instead, they kept trying to force BCPL to do something it wasn't designed for... wait, it wasn't designed period lol. It was just what compiled on a 1940's calculating device.

It's bad foundations vs others' good foundations. Might have worked for them sure. Today, though, we need to know why they did it that way and why we definitely shouldn't if we don't absolutely have to. That's the point of the essay. Plus, to clear up associated misinformation.