Making PLX Internal to IBM may be to protect its Intellectual Property. I remember a vendor taking some IBM source,, renaming it and shipping it. When it went to court, they compared the vendor code with IBM code, and noticed that the code was similar, the developers had the same initials, and both "developers" had made the same spelling mistakes in the code. Wow - what an amazing coincidence!
Remember if you go to court, you have to consider the cost of winning the case! Making PLX internal to IBM may be part of the cost of winning. Colin On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 18:03, Paul Gilmartin < [email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 12:57:34 -0400, René Jansen wrote: > > >JCL ... Fred Brooks (“the worst language ever, and it happened under my > watch”) . > > ... > >And indeed, I think witholding PL/X from customers was a very odd move, > guided by who-knows-which motives; which did not do PL/I a lot of good, > unfortunately. > > > I conjecture fear of competition from RCA(?) Others(?) > I don't know the chronology. I have long conjectured that if IBM > had opened PL/X early enough, C would have been unnecessary. > > A colleague told me that SuperC was coded in PL/X and runs > alike on MVS and OS/2. (Was an NDA breached or could that > have been inferred from eyecatchers in the modules?) > > -- gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
