Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: naughty Pascal
Date: 9 Jan 2026 20:27:35 GMT
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <msd6lnF7214U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <CtydnVqzjrtfd5P0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> <10jak55$13ji1$2@dont-email.me> <10jh3n1$3644m$1@nntp.eternal-september.org> <20260105115058.000054fc@gmail.com> <10jhvf2$3f9k2$1@nntp.eternal-september.org> <10jin2s$3lvil$1@dont-email.me> <ZN-dnYy-SfLC5MD0nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> <10jlak4$h5hi$6@dont-email.me> <WOG7R.1062270$u2q8.827235@fx11.iad> <msagnmFn9qtU4@mid.individual.net> <z9U7R.1158411$u2q8.1037856@fx11.iad> <msb5t0FqqeoU5@mid.individual.net> <10jqjtl$292fm$5@dont-email.me> <lE98R.944794$PGrb.271282@fx10.iad> <10jrih6$2jar8$5@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net Q/x/IUQeHb2P3gUO3uJ5xgOQyGk5VA0AMB065jcAAI+YUODCgC
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Y580MxrKmSFa2EaQ0Z4/zWWi4W4= sha256:O/u7i3FwWRZQym7UowEljS/t2+U8mk6255eObc73RAI=
User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk)
Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:80827 alt.folklore.computers:233466

On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 18:48:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 09/01/2026 16:02, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> On 09/01/2026 02:02, rbowman wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2026 20:09:03 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> writes:
>>>>>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2026 04:57:26 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hated Wirthian languages from the start and still do. Just bad
>>>>>>> chemistry, I guess.  But I couldn't stand having some snooty
>>>>>>> compiler slap my wrist and tell me that I couldn't do what I could
>>>>>>> do in a couple of lines of assembly language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever run into PL/M?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a listing of the PL/M 8080 cross-compiler somewhere in
>>>>> storage.
>>>>
>>>> iirc the Mostek AID-80F development system had a native PL/M
>>>> implementation. It was almost, but not quite, CP/M.
>>>>
>>> PL/M was a language. CP/M was almost an operating system
>> 
>> So?  Mr. Bowman's comment referred to the AID-80F development system.
> 
> Did it? It was ambiguous.

https://deramp.com/mostek.html

To clarify, the system ran M/OS-80 which was very much like CP/M. I 
believe there was an implementation of the PL/M language available. It's 
been a day or two. I know I used it to burn EPROMs but I worked with the 
Z80 assembler, not PL/M.