In 524a5bcb.1090...@gmail.com, on 10/01/2013
at 01:21 PM, David Crayford dcrayf...@gmail.com said:
I would have to humbly disagree. Pascals type system alone is far
superior.
The original Pascal type system was an abomination; it was only after
the ISO dealt with conformant array parameters
In 9344222173527866.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on
10/03/2013
at 11:47 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
A while back, on TSO-REXX, I advocated labelling END statements to
take advantage of the processor's enforcing that they match the DOs,
and complained that the
In
CAFO-8tq3+5fPzo0ijKZrN+9oeZFVDA8D9FGmgyqfs8y=gtg...@mail.gmail.com,
on 10/04/2013
at 07:50 PM, zMan zedgarhoo...@gmail.com said:
pedanticNot to be confused with the language PL/I.
In what year? The name progressed from NPL, MPPL, PL/1 and finally
PL/I. See, e.g., C20-1632, An Introduction
*shrug* not the official name, certainly not current. But you *were*
talking Multics era, so arguably OK.
Hey, I *said* I was being pedantic...
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net wrote:
In
On Sat, 5 Oct 2013 21:09:59 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
A while back, on TSO-REXX, I advocated labelling END statements to
take advantage of the processor's enforcing that they match the DOs,
and complained that the processor ignores some mismatches.
Did you open an ETR? That
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013m.html#36 Quote on Slashdot.org
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013m.html#38 Quote on Slashdot.org
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013m.html#41 Quote on Slashdot.org
multics (5th flr, 545 tech sq) also managed to ship the first relational
DBMS product.
http
On Oct 3, 2013, at 11:47 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com
wrote:
I think I rather prefer Python.
Out of the frying pan and into the fire. The fact that the indentation
level is significant can make things interesting when editing a
program.
I need to ponder that.
A while
I find it useful to be able to write
whatever: do . . . ;
. . .
end whatever ;
in PL/I in some circumstances and to be able to write just
do ;
. . .
end ;
in others, particularly but not always for trivial, non-iterative DO groups.
My point is of course that most people most of the time go to
On 4/10/2013 8:31 PM, Pew, Curtis G wrote:
A couple of years ago our shop decided to standardize on Python for non-mainframe application
development, so I've written a fair amount of Python since then. My experience is that using
indentation to control structure becomes second-nature very
In 0561414464209067.wa.bakersmagmail@listserv.ua.edu, on
10/02/2013
at 08:32 AM, M Baker baker...@gmail.com said:
Or perhaps from an alternate history perspective, whether PL/1
would have proven up to the task functionally at that point ?
PL/1 proved itself to be up to the task on
In 6580968401999720.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on
10/02/2013
at 09:44 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
I ponder the portability of PL/I programs when I try to imagine the
performance of SIGNED BINARY 16 on a 70xx,
C would be even worse, but has anybody ever written a
On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:53:57 -0400, Tony Harminc wrote:
Hmmm... A case for UTF-EBCDIC as a vehicle?
Hmmm... So I look at the Wikipedia (yes, I know) article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-EBCDIC
which says:
... an encoding based on UTF-8 (known in the specification as UTF-8-Mod)
pedanticNot to be confused with the language PL/I.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net wrote:
In 0561414464209067.wa.bakersmagmail@listserv.ua.edu, on
10/02/2013
at 08:32 AM, M Baker baker...@gmail.com said:
Or perhaps from an
Oops, forgot to close the tag...
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 7:50 PM, zMan zedgarhoo...@gmail.com wrote:
pedanticNot to be confused with the language PL/I.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net wrote:
In
In 1380556479.82676.yahoomail...@web181404.mail.ne1.yahoo.com, on
09/30/2013
at 08:54 AM, Lloyd Fuller leful...@sbcglobal.net said:
Actually in some circles ADA is the ONLY language. Talk to the
embedded systems people.
Some of them use C; I consider that unfortunate.
--
Shmuel
In
cajtoo59splchkyh6+v6esj3xftjek0f1vk+nngk-equbyb4...@mail.gmail.com,
on 09/30/2013
at 11:40 AM, Mike Schwab mike.a.sch...@gmail.com said:
Pascal is like an improved PL/I,
ITYM Pascal is like a degraded ALGOL 60; it is nowhere near as good as
PL/I, and has severe design deficiencies, some of
In 524a1605.4070...@phoenixsoftware.com, on 09/30/2013
at 05:23 PM, Ed Jaffe edja...@phoenixsoftware.com said:
Later PL/I versions did a great job optimizing
Do they now generate inline code for the unaligned bit strings in,
e.g., SMF records? That's an area where the code quality got worse
In
cae1xxdhjm-cpvsewgp4qvc-uon0gfmgozdvtb6m+kxp66p6...@mail.gmail.com,
on 09/30/2013
at 04:51 PM, John Gilmore jwgli...@gmail.com said:
Many C dialects do support long jumps as a language extension.
They began in PL/I
Every generation believes that it invented sex. I won't guaranty that
In 7587727851703990.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on
09/30/2013
at 04:50 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
(And ALGOL 60 allows such label objects to be
passed as actual parameters; I don't know about PL/I.)
Yes; a label variable in PL/I includes a frame pointer.
--
In 0017796631753457.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on
09/30/2013
at 03:26 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
Pascal has GOTO. Dismayingly, statement labels are numeric, perhaps
a legacy of FORTRAN (and ALGOL 60).
ALGOL 60 had alphanumeric labels, and there was a consensus
In
a90e503c23f97441b05ee302853b0e62901977c...@fspas01ev010.fspa.myntet.se,
on 10/01/2013
at 01:23 PM, Thomas Berg thomas.b...@swedbank.se said:
Personally I am of the opinion that a programming language is for the
benefit of the programmer, to be least hindered in the coding.
Short term or
shmuel+...@patriot.net (Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.) writes:
Every generation believes that it invented sex. I won't guaranty that
ALGOL 60 was first, but it was certainly before PL/I.
this has some PL/I history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL/I
in the 70s ... lots of the languages were in
In 524ab804.2030...@gmail.com, on 10/01/2013
at 07:54 PM, David Crayford dcrayf...@gmail.com said:
There are many versions of Pascal.
Using features limited to, e.g., Turbo, limits portability.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2http://patriot.net/~shmuel
In 6857679143944180.wa.ibmmaintpg.com...@listserv.ua.edu, on
10/01/2013
at 06:41 AM, Shane Ginnane ibm-m...@tpg.com.au said:
Sounds more like Perl than REXX
Trust me, Perl runs roughshod over the principle of least astonishment
and is not within shouting distance of KISS. It does, however,
In
a90e503c23f97441b05ee302853b0e62901977c...@fspas01ev010.fspa.myntet.se,
on 10/01/2013
at 02:09 PM, Thomas Berg thomas.b...@swedbank.se said:
H... From the little I have seen of Perl, it's like a gun pointed
to your foot... :)
I think I rather prefer Python.
Out of the frying pan and
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 16:57:13 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
I think I rather prefer Python.
Out of the frying pan and into the fire. The fact that the indentation
level is significant can make things interesting when editing a
program.
I need to ponder that.
A while back, on TSO-REXX,
On 4/10/2013 12:47 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 16:57:13 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
I think I rather prefer Python.
Out of the frying pan and into the fire. The fact that the indentation
level is significant can make things interesting when editing a
program.
I
In 957ca5bb-6dc8-423f-a983-cc947c960...@yahoo.com, on 09/30/2013
at 01:11 AM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com said:
I wonder why the government chose Ada...?
First, it was designed under DOD auspices specifically for mission
critical work. Second, it's a much better language than most of
In 52491967.4070...@gmail.com, on 09/30/2013
at 02:25 PM, David Crayford dcrayf...@gmail.com said:
There is no doubt that Ada is a much, much better programming
language then PL/I, C, COBOL etc.
I could make a case for PL/I, and there are languages that are clearly
better than Ada for
I remember
reading that Fred Brooks regrets that it wasn't the systems programming
language for OS/360. I suppose because it was a big, complex language
for the time it didn't quite make the cut.
I've always been kind of curious about that. I wonder if, although (since) it
was as you wrote
: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 9:32 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Quote on Slashdot.org
I remember
reading that Fred Brooks regrets that it wasn't the systems programming
language for OS/360. I suppose because it was a big, complex language for the
time it didn't quite make the cut
I recall a study many years ago with regard to which statistics tools was best,
among active statisticians, with many criteria
in the survey questions, that concluded that the strongest correlation was with
one single answer: What was your FIRST statistics tool used?
Barry Merrill
On Oct 2, 2013, at 8:32 AM, M Baker baker...@gmail.com
wrote:
I remember
reading that Fred Brooks regrets that it wasn't the systems programming
language for OS/360. I suppose because it was a big, complex language
for the time it didn't quite make the cut.
I've always been kind of
://www.multicians.org/multics.html
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013m.html#36 Quote on Slashdot.org
not only didn't Pascal sofware have the vulnerabilities epidemic in C
language software ... but Multics PLI also didn't have those
vulnerabilities ... old posts referencing IBM Research paper
http
Barry,
GDDM ...then SAS
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
from my IPAD
'Infinite wisdom through infinite means'
On Oct 2, 2013, at 9:47 AM, Barry Merrill ba...@mxg.com wrote:
I recall a study many years ago with regard to which statistics tools was
best, among active statisticians, with
, Curtis G curtis@austin.utexas.edu
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Quote on Slashdot.org
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 14:02:19 +
On Oct 2, 2013, at 8:32 AM, M Baker baker...@gmail.com
wrote:
I remember
reading that Fred Brooks regrets that it wasn't the systems
PL/1 and System 360 was a combined effort; OS/360, too.
The same way as the 360 architecture should make all other
platforms obsolete, PL/1 was supposed to make all other programming
languages obsolete. As we know today, the first goal was reached -
well, almost - but the second failed.
The PL/1
Hello Tony,
I think, I have a description somewhere of the 1979 variant of P-Code used
in the Stanford compiler (scanned document). I'll send it to you offline.
The two passes of the compiler are written in Pascal, and the second one
generates 370 object code from P-Code; it writes the 80 byte
On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 17:03:09 +0200, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
PL/1 and System 360 was a combined effort; OS/360, too.
The same way as the 360 architecture should make all other
platforms obsolete, PL/1 was supposed to make all other programming
languages obsolete. As we know today, the first goal was
Please look at is this way - with a little sense of humour:
IBM had with this architecture for some time (in the late 60s and in the
70s)
such a strong postion on the global computer market, that indeed almost
all other architectures were obsolete or niche platforms. Even here in
Germany,
On 1 October 2013 20:06, Bernd Oppolzer bernd.oppol...@t-online.de wrote:
And: it turned out, that the P-Code is not so machine-independant
as it should be. There will be some difficulties regarding character
sets etc., when I try to port the compiler to an ASCII based platform,
for example
BTW: here's a Object-Pascal compiler based on LLVM project:
http://code.google.com/p/llvm-pascal/
(I think that there are more than one of these)
For info in LLVM: http://llvm.org/
IBM has reportedly become more interested in LLVM for z:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTM1MTc
On 1 Oct 2013 08:01:35 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:52:16 -0300, Clark Morris wrote:
greatest value of GOTO is the longjump; the ability to exit a
nest of not only compounds, but also blocks and function calls.
I pine for this facility in Rexx, POSIX shell,
On 3/10/2013 3:35 AM, Kirk Wolf wrote:
IBM has reportedly become more interested in LLVM for z:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTM1MTc
and has contributed some patches to the LLVM project (at least for C/C++
compilers):
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 11:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Quote on Slashdot.org
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 16:51:29 -0400, John Gilmore wrote
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 13:21:15 +0800, David Crayford wrote:
I programmed in PL/I
professionally and IMO Pascal is a far cleaner language with more
expressive features. Pascals successors, such as Module/2 and Delphi,
widen the gap even more.
I would never profess to have programmed in PL/I - I was
Personally I am of the opinion that a programming language is for the benefit
of the programmer, to be least hindered in the coding.
It should help the coding and minimize both syntax pondering and keystrokes.
A programming language should not have a role of disciplining the programmer.
That
On 1/10/2013 7:13 PM, Shane Ginnane wrote:
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 13:21:15 +0800, David Crayford wrote:
I programmed in PL/I
professionally and IMO Pascal is a far cleaner language with more
expressive features. Pascals successors, such as Module/2 and Delphi,
widen the gap even more.
I would
If I take REXX as an example, although it has its limitations and rough edges,
it have 4 important advantages IMHO:
1. It lives up the principle of least astonishment in syntax.
2. Its functionality and syntax is oriented towards the end goal of the code
effort.
3. It lives up to the KISS
On 1/10/2013 7:23 PM, Thomas Berg wrote:
Personally I am of the opinion that a programming language is for the benefit of the
programmer, to be least hindered in the coding.
It should help the coding and minimize both syntax pondering and keystrokes.
A programming language should not have a
David Crayford wrote
begin extract
I programmed in PL/I professionally and IMO Pascal is a far cleaner
language with more expressive features
end extract/
and this is a sentiment that I marvel at. I view Pascal as a toy, a
pedagogic language animated by very dubious principles.
What I think
On 1/10/2013 7:51 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
David Crayford wrote
begin extract
I programmed in PL/I professionally and IMO Pascal is a far cleaner
language with more expressive features
end extract/
and this is a sentiment that I marvel at. I view Pascal as a toy, a
pedagogic language animated
On 1/10/2013 7:41 PM, Shane Ginnane wrote:
If I take REXX as an example, although it has its limitations and rough edges,
it have 4 important advantages IMHO:
1. It lives up the principle of least astonishment in syntax.
2. Its functionality and syntax is oriented towards the end goal of the
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Shane Ginnane
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 1:42 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Quote on Slashdot.org
If I take REXX as an example, although it has its limitations
: Quote on Slashdot.org
Shane ... ;-)
H... From the little I have seen of Perl, it's like a gun pointed to
your foot... :)
More like a Howitzer pointed at your foot. But, like a Howitzer, it can do
wonderful things if used by someone who knows how to (uh, not really me,
but I do like Perl
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of David Crayford
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 1:48 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Quote on Slashdot.org
On 1/10/2013 7:23 PM, Thomas Berg wrote:
Personally I am
On 1/10/2013 8:23 PM, Thomas Berg wrote:
True, but:
0. I used it as an example of syntax and principles.
1. As I often compile it and if necessary optimize at a high level/use an
external tool I seldom have problems with that. (To where did you port what ?
Curious if z/OS...)
Yes. I
On 30 Sep 2013 13:26:38 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:55:14 -0400, John Gilmore wrote:
[Pascal] is much concerned to interdict practices, e.g., GOTOs or
unconditional branches, that it deems 'unstructured' or 'anarchic'.
Pascal has GOTO. Dismayingly,
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:52:16 -0300, Clark Morris wrote:
greatest value of GOTO is the longjump; the ability to exit a
nest of not only compounds, but also blocks and function calls.
I pine for this facility in Rexx, POSIX shell, and C.
IBM COBOL has EXIT PROGRAM and GOBACK both of which can be
The PL/I leave statement is very different from the C continue and that ilk.
Consider
outer: . . . ;
. . .
nested: . . . ;
. . .
innermost: . . . ;
. . .
. . . leave ; /* .leaves current group, here innnermost */
if . . . then leave outer ; /* leaves
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:50:51 -0400, John Gilmore wrote:
The PL/I leave statement is very different from the C continue and that ilk.
But perhaps slightly less different from the C break.
Paul Gilmartin will object to these [and other] uses of labels, but
they are in fact innocuous.
But what
PL/I does check that do and end labels match, but it also permits
multiple closure, as in
gubbins: do . . . ;
nubbins: do . . . ;
end gubbins ; /* ends both nubbins and gubbins */
which it notes in a warning message.
The unlabeled analogue of this construction is, however, treated as an
jwgli...@gmail.com (John Gilmore) writes:
What I think of Pascal and our disagreement are not themselves
important; but such differences strongly suggest that discussions of
the relative merits of different statement-level procedural languages
is an all but futile undertaking unless the
I worked with PASCAL/VS in the late 80s and early 90s and
used it a lot to do technical computations for the Stuttgart local transport
company. I built interfaces to SQL/DS (DB2 for VM in todays speak),
DMS/PANEL and GDDM - all things that were not available from IBM
in those days - and GKS
What's the difference in Stanford and UCSD versions?
In a message dated 10/01/13 15:05:31 Central Daylight Time,
bernd.oppol...@t-online.de writes:
Today I am trying to add some - more - extensions to the old Stanford
Pascal
compiler of 1982 (running on VM/370 R6 on Hercules) with the final
I don't know much about UCSD, but AFAIK this is a small PASCAL
implementation
for microcomputers. The Stanford compiler was a port of the P4 compiler of
Niklaus Wirth to the IBM mainframe with some extensions. I took the 1982
version
from the McGill University (from the MUSIC/SP system), ported
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCSD_Pascal
In a message dated 10/01/13 17:42:33 Central Daylight Time,
bernd.oppol...@t-online.de writes:
I don't know much about UCSD, but AFAIK this is a small PASCAL
implementation
--
For
Thank you.
Stanford PASCAL also generates P-Code in the first step,
which in the second step is translated to 370 machine code.
And: Urs Ammann, who is mentioned in the UCSD article
as the creator of the P-code interpreter, which was the origin
of the UCSD pascal system, is one of the authors
On 1 October 2013 20:06, Bernd Oppolzer bernd.oppol...@t-online.de wrote:
Stanford PASCAL also generates P-Code in the first step,
which in the second step is translated to 370 machine code.
Interesting; I had thought that P-code was only interpreted.
BTW: The P-Code of the 1982 variant of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_(programming_language)#History
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
Gerhard,
I wonder why the government chose Ada...?
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
from my IPAD
'Infinite wisdom through infinite means'
On Sep
On 30/09/2013 2:11 PM, Mike Schwab wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_(programming_language)#History
There is no doubt that Ada is a much, much better programming language
then PL/I, C, COBOL etc. It's lack of popularity is probably due to
the substantial inertia of it's peers, ala
David,
I am not familiar with Ada, interesting have written C,Cobol,PL/1 . ADA like
other languages sounds like it has it strengths.
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
from my IPAD
'Infinite wisdom through infinite means'
On Sep 30, 2013, at 2:25 AM, David Crayford dcrayf...@gmail.com wrote:
-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: Quote on Slashdot.org
I guess that good to know. And I can sort of see it, from what little I
remember of Turbo Pascal and Delphi, and a brief flirtation with Modula II.
I've only had the GCC Ada compiler, and I don't
Pascal is like an improved PL/I, Ada is an improved Pascal.
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
David,
I am not familiar with Ada, interesting have written C,Cobol,PL/1 . ADA like
other languages sounds like it has it strengths.
Scott ford
On 2013-09-30 16:40, Mike Schwab wrote:
Pascal is like an improved PL/I, Ada is an improved Pascal.
I would rather say that Pascal is a very inferior copy of PL/I.
Robert
--
Robert AH Prins
robert(a)prino(d)org
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 29 Sep 2013 22:13:02 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
John,
Yeah, there are still a ton of Cobol shops and not many young bucks and does
wanting to learn it ..sorry play on words
There may be a ton of shops but are there paying jobs in them or have
they been outsourced to lower
On Sep 30, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Robert Prins robert.ah.pr...@gmail.com wrote:
Pascal is like an improved PL/I, Ada is an improved Pascal.
I would rather say that Pascal is a very inferior copy of PL/I.
Pascal was written by Niklaus Wirth as a teaching language to instruct
programmers in the
I remember in the fall of 1975 taking a PL/I class at THE Ohio State
University - the instructor was confident that by 1980 - COBOL and Fortran
would not exist outside of museums ...PL/I was THAT good ...
(and he MIGHT have been right - had there not been such an overwhelming legacy
of code in
I would amend Curtis Pew's language with just one word, that shown in
majuscules below
Pascal was writtern by Niklaus Wirth as a teaching langjuage to
instruct NOVICE programmers in the principles of structured
programming.
It is much concerned to interdict practices, e.g., GOTOs or
On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 19:40 +, Pew, Curtis G wrote:
Tony Hoare once said, The amazing thing about Algol was it was such
an improvement over most of its successors.
Not having a defined I/O facility didn't help Algol. An undergraduate
prof of mine (George Haynam, did the SDS Algol 60
Andrews
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 4:12 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Quote on Slashdot.org
On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 19:40 +, Pew, Curtis G wrote:
Tony Hoare once said, The amazing thing about Algol was it was such
an improvement over most of its successors.
Not having
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:55:14 -0400, John Gilmore wrote:
[Pascal] is much concerned to interdict practices, e.g., GOTOs or
unconditional branches, that it deems 'unstructured' or 'anarchic'.
Pascal has GOTO. Dismayingly, statement labels are numeric,
perhaps a legacy of FORTRAN (and ALGOL 60).
Many C dialects do support long jumps as a language extension.
They began in PL/I where they were/are called out-of-block GOTOs.
PL/I's used of contextually recognized instead of reserved words is a
high virtue. It is often caricatured as permitting constructs like
declare file file record
The problem with the absence of I/O facilities in ALGOL 60 was not
perhaps their absence per se as that what was invariably picked up and
used to make good this deficiency was FORTRAN I/O.
--
John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 16:51:29 -0400, John Gilmore wrote:
Many C dialects do support long jumps as a language extension.
As a language extension, or via functions? (Some purists make a
distinction. But it can't be done with functions without depending
on out-of-band knowledge of the stack
PL/I has the data types label constant and label variable and of
course permits them to be passed as arguments. (The PL/I mapping of
{formal parameter, actual parameter} is {parameter, argument}.) I
use such a label in, for example, a routine that searches a binary
tree recursively With
On 9/30/2013 5:27 PM, John McKown wrote:
teach them to be good programmers. They can and usually do write
opaque, turgid routines in both.
Yes, the old You can write FORTRAN in any language.
When I first migrated to OS/360 from the 7094, I wrote a small
flowcharting program (manual
On 9/30/2013 5:17 PM, Gerhard Postpischil wrote:
the early versions of PL/I were atrocious; e.g., changing a bit flag
resulted in a subroutine call rather than one or two instructions in-line.
Later PL/I versions did a great job optimizing and formed the basis for
today's ultra-smart IBM
On 1/10/2013 5:11 AM, Robert Prins wrote:
On 2013-09-30 16:40, Mike Schwab wrote:
Pascal is like an improved PL/I, Ada is an improved Pascal.
I would rather say that Pascal is a very inferior copy of PL/I.
I would have to humbly disagree. Pascals type system alone is far
superior. I
I guess that good to know. And I can sort of see it, from what little I
remember of Turbo Pascal and Delphi, and a brief flirtation with Modula II.
I've only had the GCC Ada compiler, and I don't really know how standard it
is. But I don't think that Ada took off any better than PL/I did. So much
John,
Yeah, there are still a ton of Cobol shops and not many young bucks and does
wanting to learn it ..sorry play on words
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
from my IPAD
'Infinite wisdom through infinite means'
On Sep 29, 2013, at 9:45 PM, John McKown john.archie.mck...@gmail.com wrote:
In
caajsdjhovrtxbmxk+bhdqwookpp7_h3z4mtthsyoyzyjfnj...@mail.gmail.com,
on 09/26/2013
at 09:10 AM, John McKown john.archie.mck...@gmail.com said:
Ada is PL/I trying to be Smalltalk. -- Codoso diBlini
Actually Ada comes from the Pascal tradition and is quite at variance
with PL/I.
--
Ada is PL/I trying to be Smalltalk. -- Codoso diBlini
And a few other amusing quotes.
http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~ravenben/humor/csfunny
To lighten up the atmosphere from some of the recent OT messages.
--
I have _not_ lost my mind! It is backed up on a flash drive somewhere.
Maranatha!
John
John McKown wrote:
Ada is PL/I trying to be Smalltalk. -- Codoso diBlini
And a few other amusing quotes. http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~ravenben/humor/csfunny
Amusing indeed. Thanks. ;-)
A program is never less than 90% complete, and never more than 95% complete.
-- Terry Baker
I'm confused by
94 matches
Mail list logo
