Re: language design after Algol 60

From: "Martin Ward" <martin@gkc.org.uk>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 11:10 PM




> The IBM Language Reference for Enterprise PL/I for z/OS is 862 pages.


The IBM PL/I for OS/2 Language Reference is 491 pages plus 121 pages
for the built-in functions, published 1994.
This reference includes a number of new language features.


The language references also include a number of example programs.


> E.W.Dijkstra wrote in his ACM Turing Lecture 1972:
>
> "Finally, although the subject is not a pleasant one, I must
> mention PL/1, a programming language for which the defining
> documentation is of a frightening size and complexity.
> Using PL/1 must be like flying a plane with 7000 buttons,
> switches and handles to manipulate in the cockpit.


Dijkstra's comment is nonsense.
It seems that he couldn't even spell the name of the language.
[assuming that the quotation is literally correct]


> I absolutely fail to see how we can keep our growing programs
> firmly within our intellectual grip when by its sheer baroqueness
> the programming language -- our basic tool, mind you! -- already
> escapes our intellectual control."


Others seem to have mastered it, but not Dijkstra, apparently.
[Considering how quickly it was designed, PL/I is not a bad language,
but it definitely has parts that fit together poorly. I once tried
to write a program that used arrays of 12-bit strings and the code
PL/I F generated was very special, not in a good way. Per one of my
previous comments, few programmers learn all of PL/I, most learn a
subset adequate for the kind of programming they do. I doubt many
write programs that use both recursive routines with stacks of
controlled storage and decimal picture I/O. -John]

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