From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5ac12f5a60b1bfe X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,87f6968ed41c9df1 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,5ac12f5a60b1bfe X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) Subject: Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?) Date: 1996/09/02 Message-ID: <50drec$e7h@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 177927905 references: <50dkud$t7h@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.pl1 nntp-posting-user: ok Date: 1996-09-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: rav@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (++ robin) writes: > Richard Riehle writes: > > Though I do not have them at hand, I recall some early IBM > > documents which referred to PL/1 after it changed its name > > from NPL. >---The first edition c. 1966 of IBM's PL/I Reference Manual >for the S/360 (PL/I-F compiler) called it "PL/I". That may be true, but all Riehle claimed is that PL/I was once called NPL. He's right. Years ago I read the proceedings of a SHARE conference where they talked about the "New Programming Language". There was some discussion of requirements and examples. > > No serious Ada programmer has to ask such a question. >---In Fortran, BASIC, Pascal, Algol, PL/I, Turbo C, you just >use it [SQRT]. Nothing special needed. With respect to Fortran, Basic, Pascal, Algol, and PL/I: true. With respect to C (including Turbo C) and C++: totally false. -- Australian citizen since 14 August 1996. *Now* I can vote the xxxs out! Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok; RMIT Comp.Sci.