People complain about old languages, usually before they even take a deeper look at them. Sure, some are “interesting”, to say the least. Go and read one of the language definitions from the 1960s, they are real eye-openers. Some of the language is quite interesting. Take Algol 68 for instance. Here’s a simple piece of code to calculate Fibonacci numbers:
COMMENT Algol 68 program to calculate the Sieve of Eratosthenes for some upper limit N COMMENT PROC eratosthenes = (INT n) INT: ( [n]INT sieve; FOR i TO UPB sieve DO sieve[i] := i OD; INT k = ENTIER sqrt(n); sieve := 0; FOR i FROM 2 TO k DO IF sieve[i] NE 0 THEN FOR j FROM i*i BY i TO n DO sieve[j] := 0 OD FI OD; sieve ); INT n; print("Upper limit to calculate sieve? "); read(n); print((eratosthenes(n), newline))
If you are only use to looking at C-like code, this might look somewhat obscure, and it does get worse. But to programmers of the time, it probably seemed quite fine. Maybe we have become too complacent.