* Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?)
1996-08-22 0:00 ` ++ robin
@ 1996-08-31 0:00 ` Richard Riehle
1996-09-02 0:00 ` ++ robin
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Richard Riehle @ 1996-08-31 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
On 22 Aug 1996, ++ robin wrote:
> 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.
>
> >as well as
> > Ada. I not the slightest doubt about the improvement of PL/I
> > over its predecessors. However, Ada is clearly superior to
> > PL/I as a software engineering language. It is even a better
> > programming language.
>
> ---Not really, when people have to ask how to do
> a square root [in Ada].
No serious Ada programmer has to ask such a question.
>
> > I could go into detail about the model
> > for pointers,
>
> ---You seem not to be aware of the DEFINE STRUCTURE
> statement and the strongly-typed pointer facilities of
> PL/I for Windows 95/NT, OS/2 and AIX.
I used PL/I long before Bill Gates heard of a computer. The
PL/I I remember supported some rather scary notions of type
flexibility, not appropriate for safety-critical systems. For
example, implicit type conversions, etc.
> > or the frailty of the DO WHILE construct, but
>
> ---DO WHILE is one of the structured constructs.
Yes it is. Too bad it also permits assignment to the loop
control variable, among other things.
> > On the other hand, I would rather see people using PL/I for
> > a serious project than C. And I have heard there is an effort
> > to release an Object-oriented version of PL/I in the near
> > future. That might actually make PL/I a viable alternative
> > to C++.
>
> ---It already is.
Not unless if does not explicitly support object-oriented
programming. And OOP kludges do not count.
Richard Riehle
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?)
1996-08-31 0:00 ` Ada versus PL/I " Richard Riehle
@ 1996-09-02 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-09-02 0:00 ` Richard A. O'Keefe
1996-09-03 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-09-03 0:00 ` J. Kanze
2 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: ++ robin @ 1996-09-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Richard Riehle <rriehle@nunic.nu.edu> writes:
>On 22 Aug 1996, ++ robin wrote:
>> 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.
---The first edition c. 1966 of IBM's PL/I Reference Manual
for the S/360 (PL/I-F compiler) called it "PL/I".
>> >as well as
>> > Ada. I not the slightest doubt about the improvement of PL/I
>> > over its predecessors. However, Ada is clearly superior to
>> > PL/I as a software engineering language. It is even a better
>> > programming language.
>>
>> ---Not really, when people have to ask how to do
>> a square root [in Ada].
> 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.
>> ---You seem not to be aware of the DEFINE STRUCTURE
>> statement and the strongly-typed pointer facilities of
>> PL/I for Windows 95/NT, OS/2 and AIX.
> I used PL/I long before Bill Gates heard of a computer. The
> PL/I I remember supported some rather scary notions of type
> flexibility, not appropriate for safety-critical systems. For
> example, implicit type conversions, etc.
---There have been some changes since then . . .
>> > or the frailty of the DO WHILE construct, but
>>
>> ---DO WHILE is one of the structured constructs.
> Yes it is. Too bad it also permits assignment to the loop
> control variable, among other things.
A DO WHILE construct doesn't have a control variable.
>> > On the other hand, I would rather see people using PL/I for
>> > a serious project than C. And I have heard there is an effort
>> > to release an Object-oriented version of PL/I in the near
>> > future. That might actually make PL/I a viable alternative
>> > to C++.
>>
>> ---It already is.
> Not unless if does not explicitly support object-oriented
> programming. And OOP kludges do not count.
---we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
> Richard Riehle
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?)
1996-09-02 0:00 ` ++ robin
@ 1996-09-02 0:00 ` Richard A. O'Keefe
1996-09-03 0:00 ` ++ robin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Richard A. O'Keefe @ 1996-09-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
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.
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?)
1996-09-02 0:00 ` Richard A. O'Keefe
@ 1996-09-03 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-09-03 0:00 ` Robb Nebbe
1996-09-17 0:00 ` shmuel
0 siblings, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: ++ robin @ 1996-09-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
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.
____________________________________________________________
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?)
1996-08-31 0:00 ` Ada versus PL/I " Richard Riehle
1996-09-02 0:00 ` ++ robin
@ 1996-09-03 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-09-04 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-09-03 0:00 ` J. Kanze
2 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: ++ robin @ 1996-09-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Richard Riehle <rriehle@nunic.nu.edu> writes:
>On 22 Aug 1996, ++ robin wrote:
>> 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.
---The first edition c. 1966 of IBM's PL/I Reference Manual
for the S/360 (PL/I-F compiler) called it "PL/I".
>> >as well as
>> > Ada. I not the slightest doubt about the improvement of PL/I
>> > over its predecessors. However, Ada is clearly superior to
>> > PL/I as a software engineering language. It is even a better
>> > programming language.
>>
>> ---Not really, when people have to ask how to do
>> a square root [in Ada].
> No serious Ada programmer has to ask such a question.
---In Fortran, BASIC, Pascal, Algol, PL/I, you just
use it [SQRT]. Nothing special needed.
>> ---You seem not to be aware of the DEFINE STRUCTURE
>> statement and the strongly-typed pointer facilities of
>> PL/I for Windows 95/NT, OS/2 and AIX.
> I used PL/I long before Bill Gates heard of a computer. The
> PL/I I remember supported some rather scary notions of type
> flexibility, not appropriate for safety-critical systems. For
> example, implicit type conversions, etc.
---There have been some changes since then . . .
>> > or the frailty of the DO WHILE construct, but
>>
>> ---DO WHILE is one of the structured constructs.
> Yes it is. Too bad it also permits assignment to the loop
> control variable, among other things.
A DO WHILE construct doesn't have a control variable.
>> > On the other hand, I would rather see people using PL/I for
>> > a serious project than C. And I have heard there is an effort
>> > to release an Object-oriented version of PL/I in the near
>> > future. That might actually make PL/I a viable alternative
>> > to C++.
>>
>> ---It already is.
> Not unless if does not explicitly support object-oriented
> programming. And OOP kludges do not count.
---we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
> Richard Riehle
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?)
1996-09-03 0:00 ` ++ robin
@ 1996-09-03 0:00 ` Robb Nebbe
1996-09-17 0:00 ` shmuel
1 sibling, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Robb Nebbe @ 1996-09-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
> 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".
>
Isn't this from a Monty Python sketch?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?)
1996-08-31 0:00 ` Ada versus PL/I " Richard Riehle
1996-09-02 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-09-03 0:00 ` ++ robin
@ 1996-09-03 0:00 ` J. Kanze
1996-09-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
2 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: J. Kanze @ 1996-09-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
rav@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (++ robin) writes:
> ---In Fortran, BASIC, Pascal, Algol, PL/I, Turbo C, you just
> use it [SQRT]. Nothing special needed.
This isn't true for C (and thus Turbo C), of course. You have to
include math.h. While it is a built in in older lanugages like Fortran
or Basic, most modern languages will require a declaration for the
function somewhere. (I'm tempted to say that a language that doesn't
require a declaration for a function is somewhat deficient, but SQRT is
a special case.)
--
James Kanze (+33) 88 14 49 00 email: kanze@gabi-soft.fr
GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue des Francs Bourgeois, 67000 Strasbourg, France
Conseils en informatique industrielle --
-- Beratung in industrieller Datenverarbeitung
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?)
1996-09-03 0:00 ` ++ robin
@ 1996-09-04 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-09-07 0:00 ` ++ robin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Robert Dewar @ 1996-09-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
robin said
"---The first edition c. 1966 of IBM's PL/I Reference Manual
for the S/360 (PL/I-F compiler) called it "PL/I"."
Yes, of course that is true. But I assume you are aware of the NPL
papers that preceded this renaming of the language ...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?)
@ 1996-09-04 0:00 Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93 @ 1996-09-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
++ robin <rav@GOANNA.CS.RMIT.EDU.AU> writes:
> >> > On the other hand, I would rather see people using PL/I for
> >> > a serious project than C. And I have heard there is an effo
> >> > to release an Object-oriented version of PL/I in the near
> >> > future. That might actually make PL/I a viable alternative
> >> > to C++.
> >>
> >> ---It already is.
>
> > Not unless if does not explicitly support object-oriented
> > programming. And OOP kludges do not count.
>
>---we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
>
If by this you mean that PL/I is alread a viable alternative to
C++, you may be right. If you mean that OOP can be done in PL/I
without the usual requisite encapsulation, polymorphism,
inheritance, and other popular buzzwords and that this makes PL/I
"object oriented" then there's a problem: By that standard, you
could call an assembly language "object oriented" - in which case
the term doesn't mean much.
Object Oriented Programming can be done in any language - this is
true. But that hardly makes PL/I (or Basic, or assembly language,
or whatever) a good, or even adequate choice in which to do so.
Heck! Even Ada83 was a pretty weak choice for OOP given that you
had to pull some pretty ugly stunts to get some of those buzzwords
to work as intended.
MDC
Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer ATT: 407.796.8997
M/S 731-96 Technet: 796.8997
Pratt & Whitney, GESP Fax: 407.796.4669
P.O. Box 109600 Internet: CONDICMA@PWFL.COM
West Palm Beach, FL 33410-9600 Internet: CONDIC@FLINET.COM
===============================================================================
"That which belongs to another."
-- Diogenes, when asked what wine he liked to drink.
===============================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?)
@ 1996-09-04 0:00 Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
1996-09-06 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93 @ 1996-09-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
++ robin <rav@GOANNA.CS.RMIT.EDU.AU> writes:
> >> ---Not really, when people have to ask how to do
> >> a square root [in Ada].
>
> > No serious Ada programmer has to ask such a question.
>
>---In Fortran, BASIC, Pascal, Algol, PL/I, you just
>use it [SQRT]. Nothing special needed.
>
I don't speak PL/I. Is the name of the function for computing a
square root named SQRT, sqrt (case sensitive), SQT, SQUARE_ROOT,
etc.? And what parameter(s) does it take? Real? Double Precision?
Integer? Complex? All of the above? Are they passed by value, or
do I have to get a pointer to the parameters? And what's the
calling syntax, anyway? Some version of assignment from a function
or a procedure with an input and an output parameter? Is the SQRT
function a "language primitive" or does it live in the PL/I
equivalent of a #include file? And when you get the PL/I manual
out, is it emblazoned in bold-faced, 72 point type on Page 1 that
the function is called <whatever> and is used in <whatever>
manner? Boy, this PL/I language must _REALLY SUCK_ because it's
not intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer how to
compute a square root and I'm obviously a victim of bad language
design - not simply too stoopit to R.T.F.M.
In *ANY* language, you can whine about the syntax of this or that
feature being "less convenient" than in some other language. I'll
bet some Apl programmers think that PL/I _SUCKS_ because the
commands are so bleeding long in comparison to what they're used
to? I'll bet there are Basic programmers who hate that you
actually have to declare variables in PL/I (I presume) instead of
simply making them up as you go along? And the fact that you have
to R.T.F.M. before you can use PL/I (or any language) is hardly a
sign of bad language design.
Get over it! Find something *real* to criticize about Ada95.
MDC
Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer ATT: 407.796.8997
M/S 731-96 Technet: 796.8997
Pratt & Whitney, GESP Fax: 407.796.4669
P.O. Box 109600 Internet: CONDICMA@PWFL.COM
West Palm Beach, FL 33410-9600 Internet: CONDIC@FLINET.COM
===============================================================================
"That which belongs to another."
-- Diogenes, when asked what wine he liked to drink.
===============================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?)
@ 1996-09-05 0:00 Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93 @ 1996-09-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
"J. Kanze" <kanze@GABI-SOFT.FR> writes:
>> ---In Fortran, BASIC, Pascal, Algol, PL/I, Turbo C, you just
>> use it [SQRT]. Nothing special needed.
>
>This isn't true for C (and thus Turbo C), of course. You have to
>include math.h. While it is a built in in older lanugages like Fortran
>or Basic, most modern languages will require a declaration for the
>function somewhere. (I'm tempted to say that a language that doesn't
>require a declaration for a function is somewhat deficient, but SQRT is
>a special case.)
>
Well here's a point that ought to be considered before deciding if
SQRT should be intrinsic or declared somewhere:
Ada was (and still is) intended to serve the needs of embedded
programming. (Yes! yes! yes! You can *still* use it to print
paychecks and it works just fine!) In embedded systems, you are
frequently limited in the amount of memory you have available and
so you don't like to drag along lots of extra functions &
procedures which will never be called. I've built or seen *LOTS* of
embedded software which *NEVER* does any arithmetic more
complicated than +, -, * and /. Hence you'd like to exclude things
like SQRT, LOG, SIN, etc. as well as any other code that might be
"intrinsic" in some other language. Making those routines live in
a "with'ed" package has got to make this job a lot easier.
I'm not really up on the latest "Linker" theory, but I'd be
willing to bet that it is a lot simpler to never include an unused
math package than it is to get a linker to find unused "intrinsic"
functions built into the RTK and remove them as "dead code".
Perhaps someone out there a little bit smarter than me can shed
some light on it? Is it theoretically possible for a linker to
find *all* unused code and eliminate it? Are most language
compiler/linker combinations in use today going through
appropriate gyrations to do this? (A plausible argument for not
building packages with a bazillion functions in them?)
MDC
Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer ATT: 407.796.8997
M/S 731-96 Technet: 796.8997
Pratt & Whitney, GESP Fax: 407.796.4669
P.O. Box 109600 Internet: CONDICMA@PWFL.COM
West Palm Beach, FL 33410-9600 Internet: CONDIC@FLINET.COM
===============================================================================
"Thanks to the Interstate Highway System, it is now possible
to travel across the country from coast to coast without
seeing anything."
-- Charles Kuralt
===============================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?)
1996-09-04 0:00 Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
@ 1996-09-06 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Robert I. Eachus @ 1996-09-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <96090415425634@psavax.pwfl.com> "Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93" <condicma@PWFL.COM> writes:
> I'll bet some Apl programmers think that PL/I _SUCKS_ because the
> commands are so bleeding long in comparison to what they're used
> to?
No, real APL programmers complain because primitive operations
like outer products and incomplete beta functions aren't provided. ;-)
I've actually thought about creating an Ada package whch provides
the "missing" functionality. The outer products are the pain. To
implement them by providing generics is possible, but you have to have
a generic formal type which has a first discriminant of number of
dimensions, and a second of scalar element type...
The field where APL is the best programming language available is
limited. But in that domain, nothing else comes close.
--
Robert I. Eachus
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?)
1996-09-04 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
@ 1996-09-07 0:00 ` ++ robin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: ++ robin @ 1996-09-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
>robin said
>"---The first edition c. 1966 of IBM's PL/I Reference Manual
>for the S/360 (PL/I-F compiler) called it "PL/I"."
>Yes, of course that is true. But I assume you are aware of the NPL
>papers that preceded this renaming of the language ...
---Indeed. I said so in a previous post in this thread:
"NPL is not in dispute. It's well
known that the early name of the language was NPL for New Programing
Language."
It's also mentioned in the FAQ for comp.lang.pl1, in the history
section.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?)
1996-09-03 0:00 ` J. Kanze
@ 1996-09-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-09-09 0:00 ` ++ robin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Robert Dewar @ 1996-09-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
James Kanze says
"This isn't true for C (and thus Turbo C), of course. You have to
include math.h. While it is a built in in older lanugages like Fortran
or Basic, most modern languages will require a declaration for the
function somewhere. (I'm tempted to say that a language that doesn't
require a declaration for a function is somewhat deficient, but SQRT is
a special case.)"
I would definitely give in to this temptation (and say that a language
that does not require a definition for sqrt is deficient). In the absence
of a commitment to IEEE semantics, the definition of sqrt is not well
defined at the language level, and it is better that it come from a
designated library whose semantics are well defined (note that math.h
does not meet that requirement anyway, but certainly the math libraries
in Ada do meet this requirement).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?)
1996-09-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
@ 1996-09-09 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-09-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: ++ robin @ 1996-09-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
>I would definitely give in to this temptation (and say that a language
>that does not require a definition for sqrt is deficient). In the absence
>of a commitment to IEEE semantics, the definition of sqrt is not well
>defined at the language level,
---I wonder what language(s) you are speaking about?
SQRT is well-defined in a range of languages.
It's sufficiently well-used that it be available
with a routine call, definitely facilitated
when it's part of the language, as indeed it should be.
>and it is better that it come from a
>designated library whose semantics are well defined (note that math.h
>does not meet that requirement anyway, but certainly the math libraries
>in Ada do meet this requirement).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?)
1996-09-09 0:00 ` ++ robin
@ 1996-09-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-09-09 0:00 ` Ken Garlington
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Robert Dewar @ 1996-09-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Robin says
" SQRT is well-defined in a range of languages.
It's sufficiently well-used that it be available
with a routine call, definitely facilitated
when it's part of the language, as indeed it should be."
No, sorry that's plain wrong, in languages like Fortran, sqrt is not
well-defined at all, no more than addition (for float) is well defined
in such languages. The last I remember, PL/I did not have any properly
defined floating-point semantics either (the standard was too early
to be significantly influenced by either IEEE or LIAS). I suspect
Robin is not a floating-point expert!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?)
1996-09-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
@ 1996-09-09 0:00 ` Ken Garlington
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Ken Garlington @ 1996-09-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> Robin says
>
> " SQRT is well-defined in a range of languages.
> It's sufficiently well-used that it be available
> with a routine call, definitely facilitated
> when it's part of the language, as indeed it should be."
>
> No, sorry that's plain wrong, in languages like Fortran, sqrt is not
> well-defined at all, no more than addition (for float) is well defined
> in such languages. The last I remember, PL/I did not have any properly
> defined floating-point semantics either (the standard was too early
> to be significantly influenced by either IEEE or LIAS). I suspect
> Robin is not a floating-point expert!
Keep in mind that Robin's definition of "well-defined" is probably more
along the lines of "it's listed in the index of my vendor's compiler
manual." I don't really see Robin using such terms with much precision
(pun intended).
--
LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality"
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?)
1996-09-17 0:00 ` shmuel
@ 1996-09-17 0:00 ` Jay McFadyen
1996-09-18 0:00 ` John McCabe
1996-09-20 0:00 ` shmuel
1 sibling, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Jay McFadyen @ 1996-09-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In <50g701$gah@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>, rav@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (++ robin) writes:
>
> He was claiming that PL/I was called "PL/1" before it
>was called PL/I. I pointed out that the first editions
>of IBM's PL/I manuals called it "PL/I".
>
There is an additional issue here. Not is there the question of what it was
called, but also how it was used. In the Multics environment - still
probably the best use of PL/I that anyone knows of - the PL/I compiler
was named pl1. Note, no slash, no uppercase (all Multics commands are lower
case and case sensitive) and no capital "I". As you can see, I am willing
to call the Language PL/I, but I wish I had a nickel for every time I
invoked the compiler:
pl1 fred.pl1
Can we call a halt this fruitless, silly argument?
--
Jay McFadyen
Development Tools and Infrastructure, C2PSD, Ford Motor Company
mcfadyen@cadcam.pd9.ford.com or JMCFADYE
(313) 33-73359
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?)
1996-09-03 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-09-03 0:00 ` Robb Nebbe
@ 1996-09-17 0:00 ` shmuel
1996-09-17 0:00 ` Jay McFadyen
1996-09-20 0:00 ` shmuel
1 sibling, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: shmuel @ 1996-09-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In <50g701$gah@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>, rav@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (++ robin) writes:
>
> 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".
>
Hardly relevant; that manual was printed well after the joint IBM/SHARE report. BTW, do you remember the truly
ugly name that IBM picked between NPL and MPPL?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?)
1996-09-17 0:00 ` Jay McFadyen
@ 1996-09-18 0:00 ` John McCabe
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: John McCabe @ 1996-09-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
mcfadyen@cc0192.pd9.ford.com (Jay McFadyen) wrote:
>In <50g701$gah@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>, rav@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (++ robin) writes:
>>
>> 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".
>>
>There is an additional issue here. Not is there the question of what it was
>called, but also how it was used. In the Multics environment - still
>probably the best use of PL/I that anyone knows of - the PL/I compiler
>was named pl1. Note, no slash, no uppercase (all Multics commands are lower
>case and case sensitive) and no capital "I". As you can see, I am willing
>to call the Language PL/I, but I wish I had a nickel for every time I
>invoked the compiler:
> pl1 fred.pl1
Does anyone really care?
>Can we call a halt this fruitless, silly argument?
I agree - this is a complete waste of time and my newsreader still
thinks it's relevant to Ariane 5!
Best Regards
John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?)
1996-09-17 0:00 ` shmuel
1996-09-17 0:00 ` Jay McFadyen
@ 1996-09-20 0:00 ` shmuel
1 sibling, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: shmuel @ 1996-09-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In <51l0rm$5lq@news1.mnsinc.com>, shmuel@os2bbs.com writes:
>Hardly relevant; that manual was printed well after the joint IBM/SHARE report. BTW, do you remember the truly
>ugly name that IBM picked between NPL and MPPL?
Whoops! I meant to say between NPL and PL/1 and to *not* say MPPL in the
message; my apologies for the "spoiler".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1996-09-20 0:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1996-09-05 0:00 Ada versus PL/I (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?) Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1996-09-04 0:00 Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
1996-09-04 0:00 Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
1996-09-06 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
1996-07-25 0:00 Ariane 5 - not an exception? Simon Bluck
1996-07-25 0:00 ` Multiple reasons for failure of Ariane 5 (was: Re: Ariane 5 - not an exception?) Kirk Beitz
1996-07-26 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-08-05 0:00 ` Darren C Davenport
1996-08-06 0:00 ` U32872
1996-08-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-08-08 0:00 ` Pascal Martin @lone
1996-08-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-08-10 0:00 ` dwnoon
1996-08-15 0:00 ` Richard Riehle
1996-08-22 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-08-31 0:00 ` Ada versus PL/I " Richard Riehle
1996-09-02 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-09-02 0:00 ` Richard A. O'Keefe
1996-09-03 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-09-03 0:00 ` Robb Nebbe
1996-09-17 0:00 ` shmuel
1996-09-17 0:00 ` Jay McFadyen
1996-09-18 0:00 ` John McCabe
1996-09-20 0:00 ` shmuel
1996-09-03 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-09-04 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-09-07 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-09-03 0:00 ` J. Kanze
1996-09-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-09-09 0:00 ` ++ robin
1996-09-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-09-09 0:00 ` Ken Garlington
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox