PL/1 vs PL/I (Re: Why don't large companies use Ada?)

[mshapiro@nosc.mil (Michael D Shapiro)]

In article <9412061800.AA26582@eurocontrol.de>,
Bob Wells #402  <wel@EUROCONTROL.DE> wrote:
>G'day,
>
>Here's a totally non-Ada question.
>
>Way back in the dim dark past while studying at (yes, and graduating from (-: )
>Uni. of NSW in Sydney I had to do some programming in PL/1. I'm sure that this
>was pronounced as "pee-ell-one." I see that Robert Dewar (among others) writes
>it as PL/1, yet I see that Dave Emery (along with others) writes it as PL/I.
>Most of the Germans here at Eurocontrol swear "black-and-blue" that it is called
>"pee-ell-eye." Yet I remember that the "eye" was supposed to be read as a Roman
>numeral.
>
>Is my memory playing tricks? What is the correct version?
>
>P.S. The PL/(I1) question is a serious one, not important one, but not a joke
>question either! (-:

As I recall, the I is a roman numeral one and the language name is
pronounced "pea-ell-one" no matter which notation scheme one uses.  I
believe IBM used one form and the standards activity used the other
form (but I can't remember which was which; IBM probably used the "I").

It's probably worth noting that most languages don't have a version
number 1.  There's FORTRAN, FORTRAN II, FORTRAN IV, ... Fortran 90.  Or
SNOBOL, SNOBOL 2, ... SNOBOL4.  I suppose it's because people have
enough confidence that they've got it right, only to have others find
problems or improvements worthy of coming up with a new version.  That
theory says that PL/I (or PL/1) was just about the only programming
language ever developed that the developers didn't have confidence in.
--
Michael D. Shapiro, Ph.D.         Internet: mshapiro@nosc.mil
Code 4123, NCCOSC RDT&E Division (NRaD)    San Diego CA 92152
Voice: (619) 553-4080    FAX: (619) 553-4808    DSN: 553-4080