Re: language design after Algol 60

From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 10:56 PM
> Robin Vowels wrote:
>
>> Dijkstra's comment is nonsense.
>
> I am curious, why do you say Dijkstra's comment is nonsense?


Dijkstra's comment is nonsense because it is possible to master the
language. His analogy with flying a plane is entirely erroneous.


Yes, when it was introduced PL/I was a larger and richer language than
FORTRAN, but was easier to learn and to use, and because there were
not numerous restrictions on such things as expressions in DO
statements, extended ranges, awkward rules in constructing and using
FORMAT statements, etc.


It was possible to do much more with the language, especially with
character strings (who recalls Hollerith constants?).


One I recall, storing large arrays in a machne with limited storage --
declare an array of one-digit decimal integers.


[BTW, the current specification of Fortran is longer than that of PL/I.]


[Perhaps he meant that it was impossible for *him* to master the language.
It does have some odd rough edges, e.g., give or take my recollection of
the syntax:


    DCL (A,B,C) CHAR(3);
    A = '123';
    B = '456';
    C = A+B;


What does C contain? Answer: three spaces. -John]

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