User talk:Ssmitch45: Difference between revisions
→PL/I-80
(PL/I-80 question) |
|||
Line 28:
Hi, don't you think PL/I-80 is more an implementation of PL/I rather than a separate language ? --[[User:Tigerofdarkness|Tigerofdarkness]] ([[User talk:Tigerofdarkness|talk]]) 17:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
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.
| |||