Put out to Pasture ? - Programming Languages

"WalterR" <wsrue@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:x5d8g.2120$NB6.1000@trndny03...[color=blue]
> A large American PL/I shop of long-standing recently began converting to
> COBOL (building new applications to replace the old) because IBM urged
> them to, explaining that PL/I demand is insufficient and that COBOL
> therefore will be the greater beneficiary of language/compiler
> development going forward.[/color]

It is worthwhile pointing out that IBM PL/I has almost always
had features in advance of COBOL, and in particular
IBM's millenium language extensions were available in
IBM PL/I well ahead of COBOL.

More recently, IBM's PL/I compiler has had a number of enhancements
including the high-speed XML parser and support.
[color=blue]
> The latter excuse was heard 3rd hand,[/color]

robin wrote:
[color=blue]
> There has been no withdrawal of support.[/color]
That is EXACTLY what I said![color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> These rumors have been around since the late 1960s when IBM
>> 'decommitted' the PL/I(H) compiler. [Yes, there was one announced and
>> never produced.] It did not happen then,[/color]
>
> Did it?[/color]
???? Did what? Yes there was an H-level compiler
announced with the S/360 on 07-Apr-1964. Yes, it
was 'decommitted' [a term coined then for several
originally announced products that were dropped.
Was PL/I dropped from the IBM product line? Obviously
NOT...
[color=blue]
>
> In fact, if such a compiler was proposed, it was dropped
> in order to deliver IBM's PL/I Optimising Compiler and the
> Checkout compiler in 1970.[/color]
No, not true. The Optimizer and Checkout compiler
came later.
[color=blue]
>
> Are you sure that you are not confusing the H compiler (never heard of it)
> with the PL/I Optimising compiler?[/color]
*I* am not confusing anything. [FWIW, I was there when
it happened.]

There were basically two reasons for dropping the H
compiler. But, first a little background:

* PL/I(F) was supposed to be a quick and dirty [just generate something
that will compile the code and give answers] compiler. Sort of a
debugging tool, if you will, but it was primarily a 'get something out
to prove the language is real' product.
* PL/I(H) was supposed to be the 'optimizing' compiler for the
language. This was intended to be the 'production' compiler. It was
anticipated that the compile time would be too long for general
development use because of the extra work required by the optimization.
Also, because it was going to require 200K of REAL memory [There was
no 'virtual storage in OS/360] it was a concern that it would be
unacceptable for normal work. [The 'H' implied 200K. But, that a
different bit of history.]
* There was a severe strain on all development resources, primarily
because OS/360 was a bigger task than had been anticipated. [Ref: "The
Mythical Man-Month"] Resources [and funding] that were originally to go
to PL/I in Hursley were diverted to Poughkeepsie and other labs to get
the essentials out to the customers. The operating system was obviously
more critical. But, even these tactics did not totally work, thus the
interim TOS and BOS [the 8K version; the 16K version eventually became
the 'original' DOS: a.k.a., DOS/360].
* The first release of the PL/I(F) compiler did not have a lot of the
critical language. The most notable missing piece was RECORD I/O.
PL/I(F) was, in fact, a fast compiler. But, the resulting code was
awful! The second release added more language, including RECORD I/O,
and then some work was begun in trying to optimize the code generated by
the compiler until a real optimizing compiler to replace the hole left
by the missing (H) could be developed. By the time (F) Version 5 came
out, the code was at least acceptable.
* During this period, research on code optimization was being done by
IBM in Boulder. It was that research base that was used for the
Optimizing Compiler, although all the development work was still done it
Hursley. Hursley also did the Checkout development. But, this was not
even a glimmer in someone's eye at the time of the S/360 and the
original announcement of "NPL" which was renamed PL/I.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> and is not happening now.[/color][/color]
I believe I also said that...
People should get the *facts* before making such statements.
It is one thing for a customer/user to do it. It is
totally unacceptable for an IBMer who has the resources
at his/her disposal to find out the truth before making
clearly false statements.

On Sun, 14 May 2006 08:46:51 -0700, CG
<carl.gehr.RemoveThis@ThisToo.attglobal.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> robin wrote:
>[color=green]
>> There has been no withdrawal of support.[/color]
> That is EXACTLY what I said![color=green]
>>[color=darkred]
>>> These rumors have been around since the late 1960s when IBM
>>> 'decommitted' the PL/I(H) compiler. [Yes, there was one announced and
>>> never produced.] It did not happen then,[/color]
>> Did it?[/color]
> ???? Did what? Yes there was an H-level compiler
> announced with the S/360 on 07-Apr-1964. Yes, it
> was 'decommitted' [a term coined then for several
> originally announced products that were dropped.
> Was PL/I dropped from the IBM product line? Obviously[/color]

Was the H compiler written in PL/I?
[color=blue]
> NOT...
>[color=green]
>> In fact, if such a compiler was proposed, it was dropped
>> in order to deliver IBM's PL/I Optimising Compiler and the
>> Checkout compiler in 1970.[/color]
> No, not true. The Optimizer and Checkout compiler
> came later.
>[color=green]
>> Are you sure that you are not confusing the H compiler (never heard of
>> it)
>> with the PL/I Optimising compiler?[/color]
> *I* am not confusing anything. [FWIW, I was there when
> it happened.]
>
> There were basically two reasons for dropping the H
> compiler. But, first a little background:
>
> * PL/I(F) was supposed to be a quick and dirty [just generate something
> that will compile the code and give answers] compiler. Sort of a
> debugging tool, if you will, but it was primarily a 'get something out
> to prove the language is real' product.
> * PL/I(H) was supposed to be the 'optimizing' compiler for the
> language. This was intended to be the 'production' compiler. It was
> anticipated that the compile time would be too long for general
> development use because of the extra work required by the optimization.
> Also, because it was going to require 200K of REAL memory [There was
> no 'virtual storage in OS/360] it was a concern that it would be
> unacceptable for normal work. [The 'H' implied 200K. But, that a
> different bit of history.]
> * There was a severe strain on all development resources, primarily
> because OS/360 was a bigger task than had been anticipated. [Ref: "The
> Mythical Man-Month"] Resources [and funding] that were originally to go
> to PL/I in Hursley were diverted to Poughkeepsie and other labs to get
> the essentials out to the customers. The operating system was obviously
> more critical. But, even these tactics did not totally work, thus the
> interim TOS and BOS [the 8K version; the 16K version eventually became
> the 'original' DOS: a.k.a., DOS/360].
> * The first release of the PL/I(F) compiler did not have a lot of the
> critical language. The most notable missing piece was RECORD I/O.
> PL/I(F) was, in fact, a fast compiler. But, the resulting code was
> awful! The second release added more language, including RECORD I/O,
> and then some work was begun in trying to optimize the code generated by
> the compiler until a real optimizing compiler to replace the hole left
> by the missing (H) could be developed. By the time (F) Version 5 came
> out, the code was at least acceptable.
> * During this period, research on code optimization was being done by
> IBM in Boulder. It was that research base that was used for the
> Optimizing Compiler, although all the development work was still done it
> Hursley. Hursley also did the Checkout development. But, this was not
> even a glimmer in someone's eye at the time of the S/360 and the
> original announcement of "NPL" which was renamed PL/I.
>[color=green]
>>[color=darkred]
>>> and is not happening now.[/color][/color]
> I believe I also said that...
> People should get the *facts* before making such statements.
> It is one thing for a customer/user to do it. It is
> totally unacceptable for an IBMer who has the resources
> at his/her disposal to find out the truth before making
> clearly false statements.[/color]

robin wrote:[color=blue]
>
> It is worthwhile pointing out that IBM PL/I has almost always
> had features in advance of COBOL, and in particular
> IBM's millenium language extensions were available in
> IBM PL/I well ahead of COBOL[/color]
Actually, both the COBOL and PL/I MLEs were announced on the
same day: April 7, 1998
PL/I Announcement Letter Number: 298-106
COBOL Announcement Letter Number: 298-098
* GA for PL/I was: April 24, 1998
* GA for COBOL was: April 10, 1998
[color=blue]
> More recently, IBM's PL/I compiler has had a number of enhancements
> including the high-speed XML parser and support.[/color]
And, likewise for XML support, V3.1 of both Enterprise compilers
were announced on November 27, 2001. The GA for both was also
on the same day: November 30, 2001,

Now, various enhancements did come out on a slightly different
schedule for later V3.x releases. But that was mostly a matter
of they were on a different development/release schedule. The
underlying code for both compilers is the same, It is just a
difference in the source syntax. Functionally, therefore, both
are essentially the same. Most of the differences in the
release schedule is due to other functions, requirements, etc.

I guess what I am trying to point out is:
Both languages are essentially equal in the way
they are treated and considered by IBM. Neither
is getting slighted nor favored as the rumor mill
would have you believe.

Isn't it amazing the clearer view of things when you allow FACTS to get
in the way of rumors and mis-statements.
Carl

Tom Linden wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 08:46:51 -0700, CG
> <carl.gehr.RemoveThis@ThisToo.attglobal.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> robin wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> There has been no withdrawal of support.[/color]
>> That is EXACTLY what I said![color=darkred]
>>>
>>>> These rumors have been around since the late 1960s when IBM
>>>> 'decommitted' the PL/I(H) compiler. [Yes, there was one announced and
>>>> never produced.] It did not happen then,
>>> Did it?[/color]
>> ???? Did what? Yes there was an H-level compiler
>> announced with the S/360 on 07-Apr-1964. Yes, it
>> was 'decommitted' [a term coined then for several
>> originally announced products that were dropped.
>> Was PL/I dropped from the IBM product line? Obviously NOT![/color]
>
> Was the H compiler written in PL/I?[/color]

I believe there was some thought that this might be done,
but I think the project was totally dropped before any
real work was done. I don't think the first line of actual
code was ever written. The effort was on making the (F)
compiler into a production level tool.

The Optimizer and the Checkout compilers were written using
some highly customized macros and PL/S.

The first IBM PL/I compiler written in PL/I was the PL/I for
OS/2 compiler. The compiler was originally compiled with
the Optimizing Compiler and then as it progressed, compiled
under its own code. That compiler is also the base for the
Windows, AIX, VA PL/I for OS/390 and the Enterprise PL/I
for z/OS compilers. One of the reasons for many of the
extensions available on these compilers is that they were
developed to make writing the compiler easier. Rather than
keep the features private, they were considered to be useful
enough for general use and documented for customers.

Carl

On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:19:47 -0700, CG
<carl.gehr.RemoveThis@ThisToo.attglobal.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Tom Linden wrote:[color=green]
>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 08:46:51 -0700, CG
>> <carl.gehr.RemoveThis@ThisToo.attglobal.net> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> robin wrote:
>>>
>>>> There has been no withdrawal of support.
>>> That is EXACTLY what I said!
>>>>
>>>>> These rumors have been around since the late 1960s when IBM
>>>>> 'decommitted' the PL/I(H) compiler. [Yes, there was one announced
>>>>> and
>>>>> never produced.] It did not happen then,
>>>> Did it?
>>> ???? Did what? Yes there was an H-level compiler
>>> announced with the S/360 on 07-Apr-1964. Yes, it
>>> was 'decommitted' [a term coined then for several
>>> originally announced products that were dropped.
>>> Was PL/I dropped from the IBM product line? Obviously NOT![/color]
>> Was the H compiler written in PL/I?[/color]
>
> I believe there was some thought that this might be done,
> but I think the project was totally dropped before any
> real work was done. I don't think the first line of actual
> code was ever written. The effort was on making the (F)
> compiler into a production level tool.
>
> The Optimizer and the Checkout compilers were written using
> some highly customized macros and PL/S.[/color]

There was an effort, which I think started around 1980 to write a new
compiler written in PL/I. It was under contract with Intermetrics and
was managed by St. Thersa, the names Steve Weiss (?) and Dave Klausner
from the labs spring to mind. It was ultimately cancelled a couple of
years
later after having spent $11M. IBM subsequently came knocking at my door
because we had a solid full ansi compiler which was successfully running
on almost all the 'other'computers. IBM wanted a turnkey project and I
think
they were put off by the smells emanating from Riley's roast beef on the
floor
below in our humble office in Allston across the Charles from MIT. This
compiler was, BTW, originally written in a proper subset of what would
later
be standardized as subset G, this facilitated porting and permitted a
threaded
approach from bootstrap to full regression tests.[color=blue]
>
> The first IBM PL/I compiler written in PL/I was the PL/I for
> OS/2 compiler. The compiler was originally compiled with
> the Optimizing Compiler and then as it progressed, compiled
> under its own code. That compiler is also the base for the
> Windows, AIX, VA PL/I for OS/390 and the Enterprise PL/I
> for z/OS compilers. One of the reasons for many of the
> extensions available on these compilers is that they were
> developed to make writing the compiler easier. Rather than
> keep the features private, they were considered to be useful
> enough for general use and documented for customers.
>
> Carl[/color]

CG wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>> In fact, if such a compiler was proposed, it was dropped
>> in order to deliver IBM's PL/I Optimising Compiler and the
>> Checkout compiler in 1970.[/color]
> No, not true. The Optimizer and Checkout compiler
> came later.[/color]

Although the Optimizer and Checker obviously recycled the three-letter
prefixes IEL and IEN that had once been allocated to the PL/I (E) and
(H) compilers.

I have always wondered whether the eventually delivered Assembler H was
based on the Assembler H that had been decommitted at the same time.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

"Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> wrote in message
newsp.s9j1o6hnzgicya@hyrrokkin...[color=blue]
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 11:19:47 -0700, CG
> <carl.gehr.RemoveThis@ThisToo.attglobal.net> wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Was the H compiler written in PL/I?[/color]
> >
> > I believe there was some thought that this might be done,
> > but I think the project was totally dropped before any
> > real work was done. I don't think the first line of actual
> > code was ever written. The effort was on making the (F)
> > compiler into a production level tool.
> >
> > The Optimizer and the Checkout compilers were written using
> > some highly customized macros and PL/S.[/color]
>
> There was an effort, which I think started around 1980 to write a new
> compiler written in PL/I. It was under contract with Intermetrics and
> was managed by St. Thersa, the names Steve Weiss (?) and Dave Klausner
> from the labs spring to mind. It was ultimately cancelled a couple of
> years
> later after having spent $11M. IBM subsequently came knocking at my door
> because we had a solid full ansi compiler which was successfully running
> on almost all the 'other'computers. IBM wanted a turnkey project[/color]

Why would they want that? as they already had the PL/I
optimising & checkout compilers - and for the full
language.

"CG" <carl.gehr.RemoveThis@ThisToo.attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:80594$44677043$d066072d$25916@FUSE.NET...[color=blue]
> robin wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > It is worthwhile pointing out that IBM PL/I has almost always
> > had features in advance of COBOL, and in particular
> > IBM's millenium language extensions were available in
> > IBM PL/I well ahead of COBOL[/color]
> Actually, both the COBOL and PL/I MLEs were announced on the
> same day: April 7, 1998[/color]

Dates of announcement aren't relevant.
At the time I observed that COBOL MLE was available
six months after that for PL/I.
[color=blue]
> PL/I Announcement Letter Number: 298-106
> COBOL Announcement Letter Number: 298-098
> * GA for PL/I was: April 24, 1998
> * GA for COBOL was: April 10, 1998
>[color=green]
> > More recently, IBM's PL/I compiler has had a number of enhancements
> > including the high-speed XML parser and support.[/color]
> And, likewise for XML support, V3.1 of both Enterprise compilers
> were announced on November 27, 2001. The GA for both was also
> on the same day: November 30, 2001,
>
> Now, various enhancements did come out on a slightly different
> schedule for later V3.x releases. But that was mostly a matter
> of they were on a different development/release schedule. The
> underlying code for both compilers is the same, It is just a
> difference in the source syntax. Functionally, therefore, both
> are essentially the same. Most of the differences in the
> release schedule is due to other functions, requirements, etc.
>
> I guess what I am trying to point out is:
> Both languages are essentially equal in the way
> they are treated and considered by IBM. Neither
> is getting slighted nor favored as the rumor mill
> would have you believe.[/color]

That has not been the case.
Throughout the years, IBM PL/I has been ahead on features
since the first PL/I back on 1966.
The OS/2 compiler was a major upgrade on
features in 1994 - a development that has continued
since, and has been ported to the mainframe, AIX, etc.