🚀 go-pugleaf

Gerry Weinberg once told me that I should learn PL/1 as every other
programming language was a subset of it.  At the time I think that was
nearly true.
	- Brian

In article <10...@ucsd.Edu> br...@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes:
>Gerry Weinberg once told me that I should learn PL/1 as every other
>programming language was a subset of it.  At the time I think that was
>nearly true.

Well, considering that LISP, SNOBOL, and APL were around at the time, I doubt it.
(P.S., it's PL/I)
-- 
--Dick Wexelblat  (rw...@ida.org) 703 824 5511
  Reunite Gondwanaland!

>In article <10...@ucsd.Edu> br...@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes:
>>Gerry Weinberg once told me that I should learn PL/1 as every other
>>programming language was a subset of it.  At the time I think that was
>>nearly true.
>
>Well, considering that LISP, SNOBOL, and APL were around at the time, I doubt it.
>(P.S., it's PL/I)
>-- 
>--Dick Wexelblat  (rw...@ida.org) 703 824 5511

I don't think he said "every other programming language DESCENDED from
PL/I", just that most of the ideas of the others were in PL/I
somewhere. That's more likely in the case of existant languages, right?

I agree with the comment, PL/I had elements of FORTRAN (a lot of it),
Algol (program structure, it pre-dated Pascal), BCPL (things like
UNSPEC() and the pre-processor), LISP (sort of, some wierd automatic
creation of list and other structures on demand), SNOBOL (sort of,
string ops), COBOL (Picture Variables, READ/WRITE builtins had
COBOL-like semantics), etc. PL/I was just plain baroque, it was often
impossible, at first glance, to tell that two programmer's efforts
were even in the same language because there were so many features and
styles possible.

But what can you expect from a language who's basic manual set was
something like 19 linear shelf-feet in size and would truncate most
significant digits from constant integers if they weren't declared
just right.

Everything was in there, but it was hardly a strength. Oh, and a macro
pre-processor about as powerful as the rest of the language, had
almost every control structure and variable type of the main language.
-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade         | b...@world.std.com
1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs

In article <1990Jan16.0...@world.std.com> b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
[stuff about PL/I]
>
>Everything was in there, but it was hardly a strength. Oh, and a macro
>pre-processor about as powerful as the rest of the language, had
>almost every control structure and variable type of the main language.
>-- 

And it ran in a 26K byte partition on an IBM Series/1 under RPS.

Did overlay a bit, though :-)

--
Mike Murphy  Sceard Systems, Inc.  544 South Pacific St. San Marcos, CA  92069
m...@Sceard.COM        {hp-sdd,nosc,ucsd,uunet}!sceard!mrm      +1 619 471 0655

In article <17...@sceard.Sceard.COM> m...@Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) writes:
| In article <1990Jan16.0...@world.std.com> b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
| [stuff about PL/I]

| And it ran in a 26K byte partition on an IBM Series/1 under RPS.
| 
| Did overlay a bit, though :-)

  I have the CP/M version of PL/I (subset G) and actually used it the
other day. Picture this: The hardware is a 386 box, running UNIX. Under
UNIX I am running a DOS emulator called VP/ix. Under the DOS emulator I
am running a CP/M emulator. I compile the target program and run it in
the emulated CP/M environment. The program being run was an *Apple ][
simulator*. 

The emulation chain looks like this:

hardware	386	8088	8080	6502
software o/s	UNIX	MS-DOS	CP/M	AppleROM

Note that the program ran faster under all the emulation than on the
original Apple ][ !!
-- 
	bill davidsen - sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
davidsen@sixhub.uucp		...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen

"Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon

In article <421@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>  I have the CP/M version of PL/I (subset G) and actually used it the
>other day. Picture this: The hardware is a 386 box, running UNIX. Under
>UNIX I am running a DOS emulator called VP/ix. Under the DOS emulator I
>am running a CP/M emulator. I compile the target program and run it in
>the emulated CP/M environment. The program being run was an *Apple ][
>simulator*. 
>
>The emulation chain looks like this:
>
>hardware	386	8088	8080	6502
>software o/s	UNIX	MS-DOS	CP/M	AppleROM
>
>Note that the program ran faster under all the emulation than on the
>original Apple ][ !!

	Well, even though that last statement wasn't quite necessary, 
at least you're still using an Apple ][, in a way!

        But seriously, don't you mean DOS 3.3 or ProDOS instead of AppleROM?
        The other ones you're listing are OPERATING systems.

-- 
If you want info about a 20 meg "floptical" drive mail me. YOU CAN ALSO
GET ONE FOR --$440-- (NEW **LOWER** PRICE!) BY MAILING ME. [WE HAVE TO GET
ENOUGH PEOPLE THOUGH..Slightly higher for less people but not much]
unk...@ucscb.ucsc.edu    APPLE II FOREVER    APL24VR   GS tips? Mail me.
unknown%da...@ames.arpa   Please use the former address for regular use.

In article <74...@lindy.Stanford.EDU> unk...@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) writes:

|         But seriously, don't you mean DOS 3.3 or ProDOS instead of AppleROM?
|         The other ones you're listing are OPERATING systems.

  To be totally honest I don't know exactly what level of software
emulation is provided. All I wanted to do was to run the program ONCE to
extract some data from a database program into ASCII so I could make use
of it. I don't know if the actual Apple program (I think it was called
MyData) interfaced to the firmware or o/s. I never had an Apple, just a
chance to get some names and addresses which were really burried in the
format of the database.
-- 
	bill davidsen - sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
davidsen@sixhub.uucp		...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen

"Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon