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: 101deb,87f6968ed41c9df1
X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,5ac12f5a60b1bfe
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5ac12f5a60b1bfe
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: rav@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (++           robin)
Subject: Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?)
Date: 1996/09/03
Message-ID: <50g701$gah@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 178104836
references: <Pine.GSO.3.92.960831192310.8449A-100000@nunic.nu.edu>
 <50dkud$t7h@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <50drec$e7h@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.pl1
nntp-posting-user: rav
Date: 1996-09-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


	ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:

	>rav@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (++           robin) writes:
	>>	Richard Riehle <rriehle@nunic.nu.edu> 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.

---No, that's not it at all.  NPL is not in dispute.  It's well
known that the early name of the language was NPL for New Programing
Language.

   He was claiming that PL/I was called "PL/1" before it
was called PL/I.  I pointed out that the first editions
of IBM's PL/I manuals called it "PL/I".

   Richard's previous posting was:
______________________________________________________

> Richard Riehle wrote:
>
>       >  I have programmed in PL/I (when it was still PL/1)
> ---PL/I has always been "PL/I".  From the first
> implementation to the introduction of the standard, to now.

  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.
____________________________________________________________