And then there's some Lisp descendants, though those can't really be considered mainstream. Lisp's core is eval/apply.
Prolog is an interesting case, but in many ways it just embeds the algorithm in the language. From an outside perspective, you give it something to evaluate and it runs off and returns an answer.
The main outlier is the Unix shell, which, like Objective-S, is connect + run: you configure a pipeline out of filters, connect them up and then run the whole thing. And this can and will continue running indefinitely. Call/return is sort of a (common) special case. And that's interesting, because it seems to actually be easier to make call/return a special case of connect+run, but we do it the other way around.
It doesn’t appear that you understood anything I said.
This might be because you observably don’t know what an algorithm is. It has nothing at all intrinsically to do with call and return.
I’m afraid any further discussion will be fruitless, but on the off chance you tire of getting predictable responses to ridiculous assertions that promote what you believe to be a deep insight, then please refer back and search for the insight required to understand what you’re being told here.
"Sub-routines seem to have two distinct uses in programmes. The first and most obvious use is for the evaluation of functions, a simple example being the evaluation of sine x given x. The second use is for the organization of processes..."
I didn’t respond regarding Algol because you said nothing of immediate relevance requiring a response. I’m familiar with the history of Algol 60. I’m not interested in regurgitating wikipedia with you. Here[1] is a good primary source on the history of programming and significance of Algol in context for you to read. Note that call/return is nowhere mentioned.
Stop chasing tangents and address your core misunderstanding. Algorithms are not call and return.
OK, thanks for clarifying that you did not understand what I wrote in the least bit and have no intention of learning, not even so far as looking at the relevant information on Wikipedia, which would help clear up your misunderstandings.
Once again: ALGOL is the ALGOrithmic Language. It might have something to do with algorithms. Now please tell me what the main structuring mechanism for code is in Algol (and C, for that matter).
Do you at least understand that any language derived from C is therefore also derived from ALGOL?
And nobody claimed that Algorithms "are" call/return. They are just intricately related in both history and current practice, particularly once we stopped treating "primitive" operations separately and instead started understanding them as functions/procedures as well. (In C, something like multiplication is considered an operation (via the * operator), whereas most current languages treat multiplication is considered a function that the compiler understands and will directly emit machine code for).
So please stop chasing tangents that have nothing to do with what I wrote and what I've done and address your core misunderstanding(s).
Pretty much every major programming language in use today is a spiritual successor to ALGOL.
What is ALGOL?
The ALGOrithmic Language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL
And then there's some Lisp descendants, though those can't really be considered mainstream. Lisp's core is eval/apply.
Prolog is an interesting case, but in many ways it just embeds the algorithm in the language. From an outside perspective, you give it something to evaluate and it runs off and returns an answer.
The main outlier is the Unix shell, which, like Objective-S, is connect + run: you configure a pipeline out of filters, connect them up and then run the whole thing. And this can and will continue running indefinitely. Call/return is sort of a (common) special case. And that's interesting, because it seems to actually be easier to make call/return a special case of connect+run, but we do it the other way around.