Re: status of PL/I as a viable language

From: "David C. Hoos, Sr." <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com>
To: "comp.lang.ada mail to news gateway" <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Subject: Re: status of PL/I as a viable language
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 07:26:22 -0600
Date: 2003-02-22T07:26:22-06:00	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <mailman.38.1045920315.9948.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org> (raw)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada
To: <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Sent: February 21, 2003 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: status of PL/I as a viable language

> Pointless Harlows wrote:
> > You may recall the perfect IBM mainframe utility routine IEFBR14 ;-)
> 
> > However, I did hear it said once that even the first version of IEFBR14 had
> > a fault in that it didnt return a zero return code.
> > Can anyone actually confirm that?
> 
> The story is quite true; I remember it well.
> 
> It had a second fault; it wasn't tagged re-entrant.
> 
> I've heard that it had a third, but it must have been documentation-only.
> 
> Of course, every "Hello World" program is perfect.
> 
> And I once tested a Julian-date converter (the _real_ Julian date -- 
> serially numbered days from January 1, 4713 BC) to exhaustion, so it was 
> perfect, too.

How "perfect" was it?  Did it take into account the varying dates on which
different parts of the world changed from the Julian to the Gregorian
calendar?

I'd wager it wasn't really "perfect," after all.

> 
> -- 
> John W. Kennedy
> "The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly;
> the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
>    -- G. K. Chesterton, "The Man Who Was Thursday"
> 
> _______________________________________________
> comp.lang.ada mailing list
> comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
> http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada
> 
> 