edit: I'm thinking of APL. It looks like it's the same kind of functionality as what the Matlab, R or numpy cohort provides.
ALGOL 68 was certainly more readable than C or Pascal, even if it was somewhat more verbose.
A very good feature of ALGOL 68 was that all the syntactic structures were enclosed in brackets, so no ambiguities or editing errors were possible, like in C or ALGOL 60.
Moreover, each syntactic structure had its own pair of brackets, so you did not have the reading difficulties caused by all bracket pairs being the same, like "()" in LISP, "begin" and "end" in Pascal or "{}" in C.
Especially useful is having different bracket pairs for iterations ("do" and "od" in ALGOL 68, renamed as "do" and "done" in the Bourne shell, which sounds better) in comparison with the bracket pairs used for conditional statements ("if" and "fi" in ALGOL 68).
In C and derived languages, even the indentation is not enough to understand the code in many cases, especially when the lines are restricted to 80 characters, when you have a long loop body that cannot be seen inside a single page.
In ALGOL 68, you have distinct closing brackets for each syntactic structure, so it is easy to recognize their meaning.
Using keywords for brackets is more verbose than in C, but much less verbose than using terminating comments. Moreover, now we can use Unicode for program texts, so instead of keywords one could use different pairs of Unicode brackets that are graphically distinct. For instance one can use angular brackets for conditional statements and S-shaped bag delimiter brackets for iterations.
Pascal (and its descendants) and Ada (and VHDL) seem closer syntactically to algol 60 than C is (begin/end as block delimiters, no parentheses needed for control structures, := for assignment, etc.) The example code at [1] (using bold keywords) should be understandable to most HN readers 64 years later.
But there is certainly a difference between c-like syntax (java, javascript...) vs. algol-like syntax (pascal, ada, ...)
> BCPL has been rumored to have originally stood for "Bootstrap Cambridge Programming Language", but CPL was never created since development stopped at BCPL, and the acronym was later reinterpreted for the BCPL book.
The descriptions of how the CPL compiler worked (eg Strachey’s paper on GPM, Richards more recent retrospectives) all talk about writing the compiler in CPL and translating it by hand to macro assembly.
I have not yet managed to look at Richards PhD thesis which contains the first draft description of BCPL, which he sketched after working on the CPL compiler and shortly before moving to MIT where he first implemented BCPL.