User talk:Ssmitch45: Difference between revisions
→PL/I-80: Some thoughts
(→PL/I-80: Some thoughts) |
|||
Line 30:
Well, yes and no. Gary Kildall took the position, in a June 1981 Byte article, that Subset G (for which, so far as I know, PL/I-80 and its companion, PL/I-86, were the only implementations, was a vast improvement over the sprawling full language, because it "satisfied scientific and commercial needs and, because of subset restrictions, was consistent and easy to use." He acknowledged that the choice was "a bit daring", because Subset G was largely unknown, and PL/I "was viewed as a large IBM oriented language with huge, inefficient compilers that required tremendous runtime support." That said, perhaps I should have labelled the language as PL/I Subset G with a "Works with: PL/I-80" tag in the examples. On the other hand, think of all the various dialects of BASIC, many of which are specific to a particular piece of hardware, that have homes on Rosetta Code. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
:PL/I subset G is an ANSI standard and there were implementations on mini-computers e.g. Pr1me.
:I agree that every implementation of BASIC seems to get treated as a separate language - maybe not all of which are justified, but the difference between Tiny BASIC and Visual Basic.NET is massive where as PL/I subset G is "just" a subset of PL/I.
:Kildall has a point regarding PL/I but it was used extensively on non-IBM hardware, the Multics operating system for example was almost entirely written in ANSI standard PL/I.
:I rather like the minimilist PL/M language that Kidall designed for systems programming - it is very PL/I influenced but not a strict subset, just as Algol-M is like Algol W but not the same language.
:--[[User:Tigerofdarkness|Tigerofdarkness]] ([[User talk:Tigerofdarkness|talk]]) 09:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
| |||