Simula 67 as a successor to Algol 60

From "Software Engineering: As it was in 1968" by Brian Randall:

In the more rarified ALGOL world in which I moved, 1968 was something of a watershed. The IFIP ALGOL Committee (Working Group 2.1) which had been set up following the publication of the original ALGOL 60 Report, met in Munich not long after the Software Engineering Conference. A week-long debate of remarkable intensity culminated in a majority decision to approve the ALGOL 68 report that had been prepared by van Wijngaarden, Mailloux, Peck and Koster (41). In response, a renegade group (of which I was a member) produced a brief Minority Report (18), in which we stated that "it will be required from an adequate programming tool that it assists, by structure, the programmer in the most difficult aspects of his job, viz. in the reliable creation of sophisticated programs. In this respect we fail to see how the language proposed here is a significant step forward". My own recollection in fact is that several of us felt even then that the recently proposed SIMULA 67 Common Base Language (12) came closer to our ideal, and would perhaps turn out to have at least as much impact as an officially promulgated ALGOL 68.

I have known a long time (mainly from the writings of Edsger Dijkstra) about how in 1968 the Algol Committee split over the decision to approve van Wijngaarden's Algol 68 language, with a significant minority issuing their own report saying it was too complex to create reliable software with. I had always assumed that the minority would have preferred something like Wirth's Algol W, but from what Randall says above they might have actually gone for Simula 67. Now that would have been something. It would probably have brought forward the flourishing of object-oriented programming by over a decade