Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: "Robin Vowels" Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: language design after Algol 60 Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 19:08:57 +1000 Organization: Compilers Central Lines: 35 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <18-04-075@comp.compilers> References: <49854345-f940-e82a-5c35-35078c4189d5@gkc.org.uk> <18-03-103@comp.compilers> <18-03-042@comp.compilers> <18-03-047@comp.compilers> <18-03-075@comp.compilers> <18-03-079@comp.compilers> <18-03-101@comp.compilers> <18-04-002@comp.compilers> <18-04-003@comp.compilers> <18-04-004@comp.compilers> <18-04-024@comp.compilers> <18-04-034@comp.compilers> <18-04-041@comp.compilers> <18-04-046@comp.compilers> <18-04-050@comp.compilers> <18-04-063@comp.compilers> <18-04-064@comp.compilers> <18-04-074@comp.compilers> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="31340"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: PL/I, history, comment Posted-Date: 17 Apr 2018 16:03:09 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com X-Received-Bytes: 2780 X-Received-Body-CRC: 14484609 Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:2084 From: "Costello, Roger L." Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 10:56 PM > Robin Vowels wrote: > >> Dijkstra's comment is nonsense. > > I am curious, why do you say Dijkstra's comment is nonsense? Dijkstra's comment is nonsense because it is possible to master the language. His analogy with flying a plane is entirely erroneous. Yes, when it was introduced PL/I was a larger and richer language than FORTRAN, but was easier to learn and to use, and because there were not numerous restrictions on such things as expressions in DO statements, extended ranges, awkward rules in constructing and using FORMAT statements, etc. It was possible to do much more with the language, especially with character strings (who recalls Hollerith constants?). One I recall, storing large arrays in a machne with limited storage -- declare an array of one-digit decimal integers. [BTW, the current specification of Fortran is longer than that of PL/I.] [Perhaps he meant that it was impossible for *him* to master the language. It does have some odd rough edges, e.g., give or take my recollection of the syntax: DCL (A,B,C) CHAR(3); A = '123'; B = '456'; C = A+B; What does C contain? Answer: three spaces. -John]