Preface

A REVIEW of recent work in a field of scientific activity may be attempted in one of two ways. One may try to assemble a collection of papers each of which surveys developments in a particular sector of that field and pro- vides a more or less extensive list of references. Or one may try to exhibit current trends by a sample collection of original reports.

Each method has its advantages and shortcomings. Since both are selective, both are to some extent biased. But although the survey method does give, at first sight, an impression of greater objectivity and of more adequate coverage, vitality and impact are, generally, lost. A survey and catalogue of the work of contemporary artists is no substitute for an ex- hibition of original canvases. I t is true of course that such an exhibition will display gaps and irregularities. Not all those invited to participate may be able to accept. Not all the exhibits will be of the same standard of significance. Again, between invitation and exhibition, some dating is inevitable, especially when progress is rapid, and it is indeed possible that some one exhibit may even expose the inadequacy of its own approach. But, for all that, essential first-hand acquaintance with actual work in progress is ensured, and any review, by its very nature, must, to some extent, reflect the unevenness of developments.

If, moreover, the aim, and hope, is to build up, over the years, a con- venient and readily accessible list of direct reference to otherwise not easily available original sources, the policy of review by exhibition which is that of this publication is not without justification. Indeed the very fact that one of the major criticisms of the first volume---that it reflected the backward state of development in automatic programming methods in the U.K. - -would seem to indicate that one of the main aims of the pubiication set out in the preface to that volume had in fact been achieved.

The present volume, too, has its gaps. I t is unfortunate that it should contain nothing of the work of McCarthy, or of Newell and his associates. This, it is hoped, will be made good in the next issue. Concentration, however, has been on two major topics: the controversy which has

vii

. . °

v m Preface

developed about the suitability of COBOL as a common business oriented language, and the development of various common languages for scien- tific computation. The papers on these matters, headed by those of Iliffe and Brooker and Morris are mainly from British and American contributors, but we are happy to include two papers from Warsaw on the work currently being performed there. In continuation of the policy adopted in the first volume to reprint as appendixes documents of inter- national importance, we have included in the present volume a reprint of the ALGOL 60 report.

Contributions to Volume III should be submitted before December 15th of this year.

RICHARD GOOD,tAN Automatic Programming Information Centre, Brighton College of Technology, England.