In the context of the error mentioned in this thread with the FORTRAN
variable DO3I etc.,
(a statement looks like a loop control statement, but is in fact a
simple assignment,
because of a period instead of a comma),
it is important to notice that PL/1 indeed inherited some
significant "bad habits" from FORTRAN, for example the idea of implicit
definitions
of variables depending on the first letter of the name ... the DEFAULT,
AFAIK,
for PL/1 was that variables starting with I to N have the BIN FIXED(15)
attribute etc.,
all others are FLOAT. This was done for FORTRAN compatibility;
IIRC, when IBM introduced PL/1, there was indeed the idea that the
scientific community which used heavily FORTRAN at that time should
convert to PL/1.
So IBM tried to make the migration as easy as possible.
Other languages, like Pascal for example, requested that all variables
be declared;
this is common today (and the error mentioned above could not occur).
The FORTRAN-PL/1-approach turned out to be an error. Later versions of PL/1
tried to resolve this.
Algol was an European effort, and it took some time for IBM to accept
(some of)
the ideas and concepts of Algol for their new language.
Kind regards
Bernd
Am 29.03.2022 um 23:05 schrieb CM Poncelet:
+1
... and the GUIDE group then insisted that the new PL/I language should
also support COBOL's I/O processing as well as Fortran, at a 1962-64
conference (whenever it was.)
On 28/03/2022 10:43, Seymour J Metz wrote:
I'm fully aware of the initial name; the fact remains that IBM and SHARE looked
at three languages, and that FORTRAN had the least influence of the three. Most
of the language derives from Algol 60 and COBOL, and the most obvious feature
from FORTRAN has gone by the wayside.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
________________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [[email protected]] on behalf of
Robin Vowels [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 4:53 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: PL/I question
On 2022-03-28 19:10, Seymour J Metz wrote:
Exaclly, especially since Algol 60 was one of the three languages
folded into PL/I.
FORTRAN, not Algol, was the starting-point for PL/I.
It was even called FORTRAN VI.
Features of both Algol and COBOL were incorporated into
the language.
________________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [[email protected]] on
behalf of David Spiegel [[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 11:38 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: PL/I question
Hi R'Shmuel AMV"SH,
Like ALGOL and Pascal?
Regards,
David
On 2022-03-27 22:52, Seymour J Metz wrote:
Personally, I wish that IBM had chosen ":=" for assignment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
