Phil.

I went to Cornell, where PL/C was developed.  In my freshman class, anyone
who already knew a programming language (I knew 3 then) was given work in
PL/1 (as then called), using PL/C, instead of in FORTRAN.  I think we were
one of the first classes, if not the very first, to beta test it.  Being
skeptical of compiler output has been a helpful skill ever since.

Where did you use PL/C?


OREXXMan
JCL is the buggy whip of 21st century computing.  Stabilize it.
Put Pipelines in the z/OS base.  Would you rather process data one
character at a time (Unix/C style), or one record at a time?
IBM has been looking for an HLL for program products; REXX is that language.

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Phil Smith III <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hobart Spitz wrote:
> >the latter..., or something even milder, I just don't know what.  Getting
> >into the habit of ignoring warnings is not a great idea, and it means
> >questions for the next person that has to look at your code.
>
> Thanks for taking my point as intended, sir. Always risky these days...!
>
> Absolutely, ignoring warnings is a Very Bad Habit. My first official
> (computing) language was PL/I (well, PL/C): I sat in on my dad's university
> course the summer of 1975, after my 8th grade. He taught me to examine and
> hopefully eliminate any warnings. At the time, I thought PL/I was anal
> about such things; now that I have to deal with C, I long for PL/I. I feel
> like in C there are lots of warnings that "everybody ignores" (often by
> telling the compiler not to issue them), whereas in PL/I I don't recall
> being unable to eliminate every one of them legitimately.
>
> I like the idea of PROTECT/UNPROT instructions*. Seems like the cleanest
> way to do it to me.
>
> So, we'll have this later this year, right? :)
>
> ...phsiii
>
> *I wasn't sure of the right term for "a thing that the assembler looks at
> but doesn't actually generate code"; Google found me IBM pages that refer
> to USING as an "instruction", so I would take PROTECT/UNPROT to be in the
> same category. Happy to be corrected, as ever.
>

Reply via email to