Re: programming in PL/I

"Derek M. Jones" <derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk>
Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:08:29 +0000

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Re: Parser generator drb@msu.edu (2012-01-08)
Re: Parser generator gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-01-08)
Re: Parser generator arnold@skeeve.com (2012-01-11)
Re: programming in PL/I compilers@is-not-my.name (2012-01-12)
Re: programming in PL/I robert@prino.org (Robert AH Prins) (2012-01-14)
Re: programming in PL/I derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk (Derek M. Jones) (2012-01-14)
Re: programming in PL/I gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-01-15)
Re: programming in PL/I gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-01-15)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "Derek M. Jones" <derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:08:29 +0000
Organization: virginmedia.com
References: 12-01-009 12-01-010 12-01-013 12-01-017
Keywords: PL/I, comment
Posted-Date: 14 Jan 2012 15:14:51 EST

Hello,


It is interesting to hear someone stand up for PL/1 these days.
http://shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com/2011/09/25/does-the-uk-need-the-pl1-standard/


>> Is there a reason to prefer PL/I over C++ or Java?
>
> People coming from IBM envionments usually don't have any C experience but
> often do have a reasonable working knowledge of PL/I or at least exposure to
> it. PL/I is more powerful than C,


Since both are Turing complete languages how is PL/1 more powerful?


> is older, has good optimizing compilers
> available,


But are they available for cpus that most people use today?


> and I personally prefer it.


Probably the major reason why people promote the benefits of any language.
[This is getting a bit far from compiler design. PL/I suffers and
benefits from being a kitchen sink language. Cobol-style pictures
are really handy if you're doing formatted numeric I/O, just
strange otherwise. -John]

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.