James H. H. Lampert wrote: > The OP wanted this treated as a survey, and so . . . > > Many dialects and derivatives of BASIC, including (but not limited to) > IBM VS-BASIC (ran on 370 and compatible mainframes), TRS-80 Level 1, > Level 2, and Mod I Disk BASIC, GWBASIC, and the various QBASICs > (QuickBASIC and QBX). (I took one look at VisualBASIC, and swore off any > further M$ development tools.) > > FORTRAN (mainly FORTRAN IV: IBM G1, WATFIV, and TRS-80 FORTRAN). > > Pascal (CDC Cyber Pascal). > > COBOL (also on a CDC Cyber). > > PL/I (CDC Cyber PL/I; CDC ANSI PL/I; IBM AS/400 PL/I). > > Assemblers (DEC Macro-11, 8086). > > (LISP) <-- the parentheses are an inside joke. > > C (mainly on AS/400s). I must go down to the 'C' again, to the loony > 'C,' and cry. > > Modula-2 > > MI (it's the closest you are allowed to get to a true assembler language > on an AS/400) > > RPG/400 (both OPM and ILE) > > CL (on AS/400s; it's like a shell script, only compiled). > > Java > > I've forgotten just about all the SmallTalk I ever learned. > > I can get by in SQL. > > The more programming languages you know, the easier it is to pick up > additional programming languages. And the less likely you are to treat > your favorite language (or the only one you know) as a panacea. And if > you have good linkage capabilities, mixed-language work is not difficult > at all. > > Not much that's on the published list. But then again, when I leave my > present employment, I'm probably never going to write a single line of > code professionally again. > > -- > JHHL
But James ... this is like a walk through the museum. Are these indeed languages that "Employers Really Want"?
