From Newsgroup: comp.lang.cobol

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:35:02 PM UTC+10, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

On 05/08/2018 02:54 AM, pete dashwood wrote:

On 7/05/2018 2:38 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

On 05/06/2018 04:55 AM, r.....@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 12:31:38 AM UTC+10, Bill Gunshannon
wrote:

Are you basing your position entirely on what it says on Wiki, Bill?

No, also on the claims of the original posting.

What claims do you think were made in the original posting?

And, my personal experience.

Although Wiki is a very useful reference resource it is far from infallible. I would trust what I remember from my own experience, before
I would accede to Wiki. I can think of at least 2 major IBM mainfame
sites in the UK where PL/1 was, indeed, used for developing business applications.

I did not say PL/1 could not or was not used for business programming.
I said it was not designed specifically for business programming.

PL/I was specifically designed for business programming (and also
specifically designed for scientific programming).

The business facilities offered by PL/I exceed those offered in COBOL,
and exceed those offered in FORTRAN.

It is a general purpose programming language as demonstrated by the claims
of wiki and the original poster that it was also used for scientific, engineering and system programming. Making it the same as Java or
Modula or any of at lest a dozen other general purpose programming
languages.

PL/I is nowhere near anything like "Java or Modula or any of at least
a dozen other general purpose languages".

PL/I was specifically designed to include business programming
better than COBOL.
Sure, it can also be used to do scientific programming (which it can do
better than FORTRAN).

None of which were ever the intent of COBOL.

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.cobol

On 05/08/2018 09:52 AM, robin.vowels@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:35:02 PM UTC+10, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

On 05/08/2018 02:54 AM, pete dashwood wrote:

On 7/05/2018 2:38 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

On 05/06/2018 04:55 AM, r.....@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 12:31:38 AM UTC+10, Bill Gunshannon
wrote:

Are you basing your position entirely on what it says on Wiki, Bill?

No, also on the claims of the original posting.

What claims do you think were made in the original posting?

"PL1 was designed for both business and scientific work. "
It's there for anyone to see.

And, my personal experience.

Although Wiki is a very useful reference resource it is far from
infallible. I would trust what I remember from my own experience, before >>> I would accede to Wiki. I can think of at least 2 major IBM mainfame
sites in the UK where PL/1 was, indeed, used for developing business
applications.

I did not say PL/1 could not or was not used for business programming.
I said it was not designed specifically for business programming.

PL/I was specifically designed for business programming (and also specifically designed for scientific programming).

It can't be "specifically designed" for two totally different kinds
of programming. If it is designed for more than one it is not specific
but general purpose. That's not computers, that's English.

The business facilities offered by PL/I exceed those offered in COBOL,

Not sure I would agree with this.

and exceed those offered in FORTRAN.

Fortran is another language specifically not designed for business but
drafted into it anyway. Often with unpleasant results.

It is a general purpose programming language as demonstrated by the claims >> of wiki and the original poster that it was also used for scientific,
engineering and system programming. Making it the same as Java or
Modula or any of at lest a dozen other general purpose programming
languages.

PL/I is nowhere near anything like "Java or Modula or any of at least
a dozen other general purpose languages".

It is in the point that it is general purpose. Designed to do more than
one specific kind of task.

PL/I was specifically designed to include business programming
better than COBOL.
Sure, it can also be used to do scientific programming (which it can do better than FORTRAN).

While I might agree with the second I certainly don't agree with
the first.

None of which were ever the intent of COBOL.

bill


--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.cobol

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 10:34:49 AM UTC-4, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

On 05/08/2018 09:52 AM, robin.vow...@gmail.com wrote:

[ snip ]

PL/I was specifically designed for business programming (and also specifically designed for scientific programming).

It can't be "specifically designed" for two totally different kinds
of programming. If it is designed for more than one it is not specific
but general purpose. That's not computers, that's English.

IMHO, PL/I was "specifically designed" to keep IBM customers on IBM
hardware!
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.cobol

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 12:44:27 AM UTC+10, Rick Smith wrote:

IMHO, PL/I was "specifically designed" to keep IBM customers on IBM
hardware!

IBM designed the language for a number of reasons:-

1. to address the deficencies of existing languages;
2. because commercial applications sometimes required
scientific facilities, and because scientific applications
sometimes required commercial facilities;
3. they wanted the language for the System/360
which was a machine having specific instructions for
commercial work (decimal arithmetic, special formatting),
as well as instructions for scientific work (floating point).
4. A compiler for one language was easier to maintain than
compilers for three separate languages.

All the manufacturers of the day engaged in practices
designed to hook customeers to a particular machine;
They did this by offering enticing language extensions
that only they offered. Each manufacturer offered different
extensions, in order to give it an "edge". And the obvious
outcome was that it wasn't always easy to change suppliers
because of the extensions that has been incorporated in
the programs.

So, in a sense you are right, but various other manufacturers
offered PL/I compilers, so it was more-or-less
the same playing field.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.cobol

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 12:34:49 AM UTC+10, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

On 05/08/2018 09:52 AM, r.....@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:35:02 PM UTC+10, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

On 05/08/2018 02:54 AM, pete dashwood wrote:

On 7/05/2018 2:38 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

On 05/06/2018 04:55 AM, r.....@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 12:31:38 AM UTC+10, Bill Gunshannon >>>>> wrote:

Are you basing your position entirely on what it says on Wiki, Bill?

No, also on the claims of the original posting.

What claims do you think were made in the original posting?

"PL1 was designed for both business and scientific work. "
It's there for anyone to see.

No it isn't.

And, my personal experience.

Although Wiki is a very useful reference resource it is far from
infallible. I would trust what I remember from my own experience, before >>> I would accede to Wiki. I can think of at least 2 major IBM mainfame
sites in the UK where PL/1 was, indeed, used for developing business
applications.

I did not say PL/1 could not or was not used for business programming.
I said it was not designed specifically for business programming.

PL/I was specifically designed for business programming (and also specifically designed for scientific programming).

It can't be "specifically designed" for two totally different kinds
of programming.

Well, they aren't totally different kinds of programming.
By the mid 1960s, the needs of commercial programming
required some scientific facilities, and the needs of
scientific programming required some business facilities.
(example, floating-point added to COBOL).

If it is designed for more than one it is not specific
but general purpose. That's not computers, that's English.

The business facilities offered by PL/I exceed those offered in COBOL,

Not sure I would agree with this.

and exceed those offered in FORTRAN.

Fortran is another language specifically not designed for business but drafted into it anyway. Often with unpleasant results.

It is a general purpose programming language as demonstrated by the claims >> of wiki and the original poster that it was also used for scientific,
engineering and system programming. Making it the same as Java or
Modula or any of at lest a dozen other general purpose programming
languages.

PL/I is nowhere near anything like "Java or Modula or any of at least
a dozen other general purpose languages".

It is in the point that it is general purpose. Designed to do more than
one specific kind of task.

They are not even in the same league.

PL/I was specifically designed to include business programming
better than COBOL.
Sure, it can also be used to do scientific programming (which it can do better than FORTRAN).

While I might agree with the second I certainly don't agree with
the first.

You may care to look at Tucker's "Programming Languages" which
compares several languages.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.cobol

On 05/08/2018 10:44 AM, Rick Smith wrote:

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 10:34:49 AM UTC-4, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

On 05/08/2018 09:52 AM, robin.vow...@gmail.com wrote:

[ snip ]

PL/I was specifically designed for business programming (and also
specifically designed for scientific programming).

It can't be "specifically designed" for two totally different kinds
of programming. If it is designed for more than one it is not specific
but general purpose. That's not computers, that's English.

IMHO, PL/I was "specifically designed" to keep IBM customers on IBM
hardware!

Exactly!!!

bill

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.cobol

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 11:27:13 PM UTC+10, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

On 05/08/2018 10:44 AM, Rick Smith wrote:

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 10:34:49 AM UTC-4, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

On 05/08/2018 09:52 AM, robin.vow...@gmail.com wrote:

[ snip ]

PL/I was specifically designed for business programming (and also
specifically designed for scientific programming).

It can't be "specifically designed" for two totally different kinds
of programming. If it is designed for more than one it is not specific
but general purpose. That's not computers, that's English.

IMHO, PL/I was "specifically designed" to keep IBM customers on IBM hardware!

Exactly!!!

Wrong.

PL/I was designed by a committee, three members of which were taken from
IBM, and three from SHARE, a scientific users group.
Subsequently the design team included members of SHARE and GUIDE.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.cobol

On Wed, 9 May 2018 07:55:02 -0700 (PDT), robin.vowels@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 11:27:13 PM UTC+10, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

On 05/08/2018 10:44 AM, Rick Smith wrote:

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 10:34:49 AM UTC-4, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

On 05/08/2018 09:52 AM, robin.vow...@gmail.com wrote:

[ snip ]

PL/I was specifically designed for business programming (and also
specifically designed for scientific programming).

It can't be "specifically designed" for two totally different kinds
of programming. If it is designed for more than one it is not specific >> >> but general purpose. That's not computers, that's English.

IMHO, PL/I was "specifically designed" to keep IBM customers on IBM
hardware!

Exactly!!!

Wrong.

PL/I was designed by a committee, three members of which were taken from
IBM, and three from SHARE, a scientific users group.
Subsequently the design team included members of SHARE and GUIDE.

As I recall, FORTRAN, PL/I and REXX were invented by IBM employees in
concert with customers in some cases. All of these languages have
been standardized and used on other platforms.

Clark Morris
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.cobol

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 11:20:05 AM UTC-4, Clark F Morris wrote:

On Wed, 9 May 2018 07:55:02 -0700 (PDT), robin.vow...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 11:27:13 PM UTC+10, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

On 05/08/2018 10:44 AM, Rick Smith wrote:

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 10:34:49 AM UTC-4, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

On 05/08/2018 09:52 AM, robin.vow...@gmail.com wrote:

[ snip ]

PL/I was specifically designed for business programming (and also
specifically designed for scientific programming).

It can't be "specifically designed" for two totally different kinds
of programming. If it is designed for more than one it is not specific >> >> but general purpose. That's not computers, that's English.

IMHO, PL/I was "specifically designed" to keep IBM customers on IBM
hardware!

Exactly!!!

Wrong.

PL/I was designed by a committee, three members of which were taken from >IBM, and three from SHARE, a scientific users group.
Subsequently the design team included members of SHARE and GUIDE.

As I recall, FORTRAN, PL/I and REXX were invented by IBM employees in
concert with customers in some cases. All of these languages have
been standardized and used on other platforms.

Both SHARE and GUIDE were IBM user groups. Hence, "IBM customers on IBM hardware."

[SHARE has been in operation since 1955. GUIDE folded in 1999.]
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.cobol

On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 1:20:05 AM UTC+10, Clark F Morris wrote:

On Wed, 9 May 2018 07:55:02 -0700 (PDT), r.....@gmail.com wrote:

PL/I was designed by a committee, three members of which were taken from >IBM, and three from SHARE, a scientific users group.
Subsequently the design team included members of SHARE and GUIDE.

As I recall, FORTRAN, PL/I and REXX were invented by IBM employees in
concert with customers in some cases. All of these languages have
been standardized and used on other platforms.

FORTRAN was invented at IBM (by employees).
PL/I was invented initially by a committee consisting initially of
three IBM-ers and 3 members of SHARE (USER'S GROUP), as I said.
Subsequently the committee included members of SHARE and GUIDE,
as I said.
REXX was invented at IBM.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.cobol

On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 1:41:00 AM UTC+10, Rick Smith wrote:

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 11:20:05 AM UTC-4, Clark F Morris wrote:

On Wed, 9 May 2018 07:55:02 -0700 (PDT), robin.vow...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 11:27:13 PM UTC+10, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

On 05/08/2018 10:44 AM, Rick Smith wrote:

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 10:34:49 AM UTC-4, Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> >> On 05/08/2018 09:52 AM, robin.vow...@gmail.com wrote:

[ snip ]

PL/I was specifically designed for business programming (and also
specifically designed for scientific programming).

It can't be "specifically designed" for two totally different kinds >> >> of programming. If it is designed for more than one it is not specific
but general purpose. That's not computers, that's English.

IMHO, PL/I was "specifically designed" to keep IBM customers on IBM
hardware!

Exactly!!!

Wrong.

PL/I was designed by a committee, three members of which were taken from >IBM, and three from SHARE, a scientific users group.
Subsequently the design team included members of SHARE and GUIDE.

As I recall, FORTRAN, PL/I and REXX were invented by IBM employees in concert with customers in some cases. All of these languages have
been standardized and used on other platforms.

Both SHARE and GUIDE were IBM user groups.

They were users of IBM equipment, not IBM employees.

Hence, "IBM customers on IBM hardware."

[SHARE has been in operation since 1955. GUIDE folded in 1999.]

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114