How IBM recovered from the PL/I fiasco
David Frank
http://www.rules-of-the-game.com/com003-memoir2.htm
<<<
One good thing was accomplished for IBM, too, during that strange becalmed
period: I helped IBM recover from the PL/I fiasco. The PL/I project had
started during my first tour with the company, in New York, as a way of
avoiding the dreaded "proliferation of programming languages." The cost of
developing and maintaining programming languages had impressed IBM
management deeply, and they were willing listeners to the argument that
the way to minimize this cost was to develop one language that would
support virtually all important users, replacing Fortran, Cobol, and even,
to a great extent, assembler language. During my years with LMSC, IBM's
PL/I effort had proceeded, and had produced a language that did indeed
include just about every feature that Fortran and Cobol offered, as well
as a good deal else.
The guiding principle behind its design seemed to be the same as that of
the original Fortran compiler "Oh, and another thing..." The difference
was that in the case of Fortran, for all practical purposes the first real
compiler, dependence on that principle was quite understandable; its
designers were inventing computer science as they went, and doing it
brilliantly. The PL/I designers had no such excuse; they had the examples
of Fortran, Cobol, and a dozen other languages before them, and they had
the benefit, if they had chosen to avail themselves of it, of criticism
from many others with hard-won experience in language design and
implementation. But they apparently saw the only threat to PL/I's success
as coming from its possible functional incompleteness: as the Fortran
designers had feared only that someone might say "Look at that redundant
store instruction in that object program; Fortran can't produce good
code!", so PL/I's seemed to fear only that someone might say "Here's
something I could have done in language X, and PL/I has no equivalent
feature!" So they piled feature after feature into it-and "piled" is the
right verb-producing the kind of creature that is usually cobbled together
by a mad scientist, using a brain dug up by Igor, his devoted but somewhat
addled assistant.
I had paid little attention to PL/I during the years of its development; I
was busy with my own work, which lay at the opposite end of the spectrum
of programming-language concepts. If anything, I rather welcomed PL/I, in
the same way that a revolutionary welcomes a crisis in capitalism: it will
be painful, but it will show up the rottenness of the System, and speed
the revolution. I don't need to depend on memory for this, because I still
have the letter sent me on December 10, 1965 by R. N. Southworth, editor
of the PL/I Bulletin, soliciting my views on the language. My response
ran:
PL/I represents, I think, a fundamentally bad strategy. Its language, far
too rich for most applications, is at the same time far from universal;
the resulting compromise is a language not quite right for anything. This
is the inevitable consequence of its designers' error of aiming toward a
universal language of conventional implementation rather than toward an
open-ended processor capable of translating a growing variety of
languages. ....the weight of IBM is enough to ensure that PL/I will be
widely implemented and strongly urged upon us; how many programmers will
voluntarily abandon FORTRAN and COBOL to use it is a very different
question. If it is to find widespread use, I suspect it will come about
only through a strong IBM sales-pitch to non-programming middle and upper
management on the economic virtues of a single-language shop, followed by
much arm-twisting of working programmers. In one way I welcome PL/I: I
think it will provide a massive test of my hypothesis on what's wrong with
closed processors. In the hope that its failure will speed the coming of
the age of mammals, I welcome this last and greatest of dinosaurs.
PL/I, in short, was someone else's mistake, and not even an interesting
mistake; there wasn't much either to fear or hope for from it. On the one
hand it was a sad waste of money and talent, but hardly unique as such; on
the other, it was clearly going to be so enormous a flop that it was just
possible the programming community would learn something from it, but
there was no guarantee that even a failure on that scale would be a 2x4
big enough to get that mule's attention. By "failure" I didn't mean that
PL/I would not amount to a viable programming language given the resources
devoted to it, it could hardly help achieve that status-but that it would
not achieve its announced objective of replacing all the other major
languages. The idea had been that instead of supporting n languages (n =
3, 4, or 5), IBM would have to support only one; it was obvious to some of
us that it would instead require that IBM support n+1. The saddest news
for IBM was that PL/I was not bad enough to disappear from the face of the
earth, but was just good enough to attract some users, gather a
constituency, and become, like Fortran and Cobol before it, impossible to
abandon. If only it had been a total failure, absolutely unusable as a
programming system, IBM would have been able to cut its losses, but the
damned thing wouldn't even have the grace to die.
When I rejoined IBM, however, my detached attitude fell away fast; now it
was not just a piece of misguided technology, but a potential disaster for
the company I worked for. IBM was so sold on the "single language" idea
that it had publicly announced its coming withdrawal of support for
Fortran and Cobol; this announcement was made, if my memory can be
trusted, by an IBM vice president at a Spring Joint Computer Conference in
Atlantic City. This struck me as one of the worst ideas ever heard of.
Here was IBM, with something close to a stranglehold on the computing
market, telling its customers that if they stuck with IBM hardware, all
their heavy investment in Fortran and Cobol programs was going to be lost!
The other manufacturers' marketing people must have thought they'd gone to
heaven, what with IBM handing them an opportunity like this. All they
needed to do was to assure the market that they were going to support
Fortran and Cobol till hell froze over, and then set up extra phone lines
to take orders from defecting IBM customers. How IBM, a company almost
universally considered to be the most market-driven in the industry,
managed to miss this obvious consequence I can't imagine, but they did.
Since assembly language was also to be replaced in large part, if not
entirely, by PL/I, we in the Assembler Mission were given a chance to be
heard at one or two meetings of the Corporate Language Strategy Committee
(this may not be the exact name, but it's very close) in New York. I
circulated at one such meeting a memorandum pointing to the marketing
problem that IBM was making for itself, and managed to restrain my
exuberant vocabulary for once, entirely forgoing such terms as
"imbecilic," "fatuous," and the like. Instead, I produced a sober,
restrained position paper, full of comforting terms like "market share,"
"prudence," and "defensive posture" (I must have been really impressed by
the gravity of the danger to have so successfully disguised my voice). I
overheard enough of the comments that were made about this paper in
private conversations among other attendees to know that several of them
were quite impressed by it; to what extent it was instrumental in causing
IBM to retract its virtual suicide note I don't know, and probably never
will, unless some ex-IBMer in a position to know is moved by this account
to tell the story. In the meantime, I enjoy speculating that I may just
have saved IBM from loss of its leadership position in the computer
industry not a bad reward for re-hiring me.
>>>
David Frank
"Terence" <tbwr...@cantv.net> wrote in message
news:1155254691.1...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> I was working for IBM when that happened.
> I was then mainly in the Paris Vendome office and in the Nice "La
> Goude" labs, but attached to Hursley Labs in Winchester, UK.
> It affected plans for futher Fortan development and of course, IBM then
> produced PL/1 (about 700 people worked on it and it shows) which became
> the language I used for the next 10 years of so. But other hardware
> companies, notable in process control and scientific areas continued
> with Fortran compilers; DEC, Burroughs, and HP come to mind.
> Terence Wright
>
PeD
have saved IBM from loss of its leadership position in the computer
industry not a bad reward for re-hiring me."
Only that?
When too much, it becomes non plausible and unplesant.
My info : I am working in a company where the repository contains more
than 30.000 PL/I programs and where, every night, more than 2000
critical PL/I programs are processed.
The largest one contains at compile time more than 100.000 lines ( and
don't attack me on the design - that program is very powerful, fast,
and easily maintenable ).
Just my two euro cents.
Tom Linden
I hope your PL/I code is better than your HTML :-)
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.evola.be
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
PeD
> I hope your PL/I code is better than your HTML :-)
>
Sorry ,( but as my English is not my mother tong ), please explain
where my HTML fails !
Cheers
Pierre
Tom Linden
It doesn't conform to standards. I posted the URL in my previous note,
here it is again, just click on the link below
robin
>Below is an excerpt from Mark Halpern's
>
>http://www.rules-of-the-game.com/com003-memoir2.htm
>
> One good thing was accomplished for IBM, too, during that strange becalmed
> period: I helped IBM recover from the PL/I fiasco. The PL/I project had
> started during my first tour with the company, in New York, as a way of
> avoiding the dreaded "proliferation of programming languages." The cost of
> developing and maintaining programming languages had impressed IBM
> management deeply, and they were willing listeners to the argument that
> the way to minimize this cost was to develop one language that would
> support virtually all important users, replacing Fortran, Cobol, and even,
> to a great extent, assembler language. During my years with LMSC, IBM's
> PL/I effort had proceeded, and had produced a language that did indeed
> include just about every feature that Fortran and Cobol offered, as well
> as a good deal else.
The above and the remainder of that post is fanciful tommyrot.
It is well-known that elements were drawn from FORTRAN [fortunately,
not much because in 1964 that language was 20 years out-of-date],
COBOL, and ALGOL.
As well as that, PL/I contained list processing facilities
not found in any of those languages.
These features made it the outstanding language of the time,
and a giant leap forward over FORTRAN.
robin
DEC, Burroughs and HP brought out PL/I compilers,
along with Univac, CDC, Wang, Pr1me, Q1 Corp, Fujitsu, Honeywell,
Liant, Stratus, Uniprise, Olivetti, Digital Research, as well as universities.
David Frank
"robin" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:eT9Eg.12157$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> The above and the remainder of that post is fanciful tommyrot.
>
> It is well-known that elements were drawn from FORTRAN [fortunately,
> not much because in 1964 that language was 20 years out-of-date],
> COBOL, and ALGOL.
> As well as that, PL/I contained list processing facilities
> not found in any of those languages.
> These features made it the outstanding language of the time,
> and a giant leap forward over FORTRAN.
>
>
If it was so great, why didnt it succeed?
Its taken 40yrs but the hand-writing has been on the wall the last 2
decades,
IBM keeps killing-off its PL/I support, and why isnt there new vendor
support
introduced with new machines?
BTW, remember PLI-2000 compiler try back 3 yrs ago that
went no-where? Hey Hugh Gleaves what happened?
PLI-GCC 0.0.0.0.123 will go down the same tube without reaching a 1.0
release.
There is NO NEW CUSTOMER INTEREST as IBM has related..
.
<<<
> was just good enough to attract some users, gather a
> constituency, and become, like Fortran and Cobol before it, impossible to
> abandon. If only it had been a total failure, absolutely unusable as a
> programming system, IBM would have been able to cut its losses, but the
> damned thing wouldn't even have the grace to die. -- Mark Halpern
>>>
Kevin G. Rhoads
>> and a giant leap forward over FORTRAN.
>>
>>
>
>If it was so great, why didnt it succeed?
>
And are you typing your stuff in on a Dvorak keyboard, or are you using QWERTY?
Repeated tests have shown advantage to Dvorak for touch typists, but QWERTY remains
the norm.
"If it was so great, why didnt (sic) it succeed?"
Really! DUH!
robin
>
>"robin" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>news:eT9Eg.12157$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> The above and the remainder of that post is fanciful tommyrot.
>>
>> It is well-known that elements were drawn from FORTRAN [fortunately,
>> not much because in 1964 that language was 20 years out-of-date],
>> COBOL, and ALGOL.
>> As well as that, PL/I contained list processing facilities
>> not found in any of those languages.
>> These features made it the outstanding language of the time,
>> and a giant leap forward over FORTRAN.
>If it was so great, why didnt it succeed?
>Its taken 40yrs but the hand-writing has been on the wall the last 2
>decades,
Then why has IBM been repeatedly bringing out new compilers
and upgrading them?
IBM produced a totally new PL/I complker in 1994 for the PC.
That compiler has since been ported to other machines.
>IBM keeps killing-off its PL/I support,
Only last year it brought out WebSphere PL/I.
But you know that, don't you.
James J. Weinkam
>
> If it was so great, why didnt it succeed?
I hate to reply to you because you're such a jerk, but I have to admit that you
are right in a way. But it's really sad. Here is what is going on:
The truth of the matter is that Gresham's Law: "Bad money drives out good" or
Ruskin's principle: "The hoi paloi always prefer an inferior, cheap product over
a superior, more expensive one" are what govern here.
That's why crap like C wins out over far better languages and stupid fools such
as you continue to idolize FORTRAN.
As I said, it's really sad, but that's life in the big city.
The socialist idea of the centrally managed economy is totally discredited. On
the other hand, the capatalist idea that the best product wins out in the end is
sadly but equally false. The fact is that most people recognize a totally
inferior procuct for what it is and refuse to buy it; similarly they see the
superiority of the finest products but are unwilling to pay the price. In the
end, they settle for mediocrity at an inflated price, as Ruskin so astutely
observed. As I have said, sad, sad, sad. Unfortunately, Utopia, as its name
implies, does not exist.
Tim C.
>>IBM keeps killing-off its PL/I support,
>
>Only last year it brought out WebSphere PL/I.
>But you know that, don't you.
These two statements are not mutually exclusive though.
--
Tim C.
David Frank
"Tim C." <tim.cha...@aon.at> wrote in message
news:e6f5e2hahr99n4a6u...@4ax.com...
Mark Halpern must have had people like Vowels in mind when he says
David Frank
"Kevin G. Rhoads" <kgrh...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:44E1D4B6...@alum.mit.edu...
Not a good analogy, users can use either keyboard with NEW computers
and DVORAK is available for those who prefer it (I DONT)..
PL/I cant be used with new computers because there are NO compilers,
and every year the OLD SLOW hardware gets more and more decrepit along with
the
OLD SLOW PLIer compiler and its baby-sitter.
Otoh, there are more current Fortran compilers for Windows than any other
language.
AND when an announcement is made about non-Windows based hardware,
the proud vendor invariably announces that C++ and Fortran (and only those
2)
are available in support.
robin
>
> PLI-GCC 0.0.0.0.123 will go down the same tube without reaching a 1.0
>release.
PL/I GCC has been getting along just fine.
You will be pleased to note that the most recent release
was just a few days ago on 10th August 2006,
when version 0.0.12 was released (that's the 12th release).
It is being developed in spare time.
As well, in a separate project, there is another PL/I compiler being wrritten.
Kevin G. Rhoads
Then you return with present and forward looking statements (I am not
commenting upon the accuracy of those, just their temporal outlook).
Can you see why that kind of behavior gets you treated like a troll?
What is the point of this obnoxious personal vendetta? You have irritated
many of the regulars not only in comp.lang.pl1 but also in comp.lang.fortran
with this kind of behavior. Why?
Peter Flass
Yeah, just a quick update. Today I finally compiled some code on OS/2
using the self-compiled compiler. Confusing, but progress. A few
minor porting problems, a few of what I call "complexity bugs", e.g.
trying to compile something like a RETURN from a procedure with ten
entry points which generates *lots* of code. Hopefully "real soon now."
robin
news:44e30270$0$20250$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
> PL/I cant be used with new computers because there are
> NO compilers, and every year the OLD SLOW hardware
> gets more and more decrepit
New computers, believe it or not, come out
every other day, and PL/I can be used with them.
David Frank
And how, pray tell, can PL/I be used when there are "NO compilers"
e.g. IBM's support of their G5 chip on OSX systems
How do you use PL/I with a MAC ?
http://www.absoft.com/Products/Compilers/Fortran/Macintosh/macintosh.html
glen herrmannsfeldt
(snip)
> And how, pray tell, can PL/I be used when there are "NO compilers"
Many languages have been used when there were no compilers.
Note that most compilers are written in the language that they
compile. How did they get compiled in the first place?
-- glen
David Frank
"glen herrmannsfeldt" <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:jP-dnWFVdcpBCHvZ...@comcast.com...
Probably by using the OTHER compiler provided these days, C++
or by using a hi-level macro-assy.
I doubt whether most compilers these days are written in their lingo
as it allows fewer compiler writers be employed in support of these
fav 2 languages provided by vendors.
Your answer doesnt address my question.
e.g. IBM's support of their G5 chip on OSX systems
How do you use PL/I with a MAC ?
http://www.absoft.com/Products/Compilers/Fortran/Macintosh/macintosh.html
Note there are 2 Fortran compilers available,
1 by Absoft and 1 by IBM
David Frank
Some more IBM hardware supported by C++ and Fortran, and nary
a PL/I compiler in sight..
David Frank
IBM super-computers use C++ and Fortran
with nary a mention of PL/I
http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/ibm-bgl/documentation/
William M. Klein
Have you read the licensing requirements for running under z/OS.e? (How
about SurePos?)
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"David Frank" <dave_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44edb4d3$0$20189$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
David Frank
"William M. Klein" <wmk...@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:QWjHg.20767$zw6....@fe02.news.easynews.com...
> David,
> Have you read the licensing requirements for running under z/OS.e? (How
> about SurePos?)
>
Dont know why you ask your questions, but if it relates to running z/os
applications
then perhaps its time to back-up and clarify what IBM has delivering for
years
with their VA PL/I and calling it Windows support.
Correct me if I'm wrong but even VA PL/I was never a true windows native
code
compiler, that is the resulting code CANT be moved to a arbitrary
Windows machine and run AS IS as a windows.exe program
without support of a PLI (Pathetic Layer Install)..
With the CANCELLATION of VA PL/I the support layer has gotten even denser
as a Z/OS PL/I compiler cranks out a P.O.S Java application
that must run under a WEBSPHERE layer and will be even slower.
So if your questions relate to moving a z/os developed pl/i app. to a
super-computer thats
been harnessed to a websphere PLOW then i'm sure IBM's Blue Gene
customers
would get a horse laff with that suggestion.
William M. Klein
IBM operating systems fro which there are PL/I compilers but not Fortran
compilers (as you provided examples of those that have Fortran but not PL/I).
Both environments exist and this says very little about IBM and much more about
what its customers want for each operating system.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"David Frank" <dave_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44eed2db$0$20217$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
robin
> With the CANCELLATION of VA PL/I
This was replaced by Websphere PL/I.
I and others have told you that many times.
David Frank
The so-called replacement does not generate a Windows.exe it generates
a Java IL output that must run in the Websphere Java IL interpretator which
is
bound to be slower.
Visual Age PL/I for Windows is HISTORY joining
Visual Age PL/I for OS/2
William M. Klein
statements.
Check out page 122 of the current PL/I for Windows Programming Guide, the
section
"Specifying executable output type "
that starts,
"You can use the linker to produce executable modules (.EXE) and dynamic link
libraries (.DLL). The linker produces .EXE files by default. "
(from manual GC26-9177-04)
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"David Frank" <dave_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44f03fab$0$20238$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
David Frank
> Have you actually read the manuals before making any of your (usually odd)
> statements.
>
> Check out page 122 of the current PL/I for Windows Programming Guide, the
> section
>
> "Specifying executable output type "
>
> that starts,
>
> "You can use the linker to produce executable modules (.EXE) and dynamic
> link libraries (.DLL). The linker produces .EXE files by default. "
>
> (from manual GC26-9177-04)
>
Whats the date of this guide and does it identify its for Z/OS PL/I for
Windows?
Since its likely IBM has yet to sell ANYONE a Z/OS PL/I for Windows pkg at
twice the cost
of Visual Age's OUTRAGEOUS $3000, (no upgrade pricing for existing Visual
Age PL/I customers),
you may have just quoted a outdated description of how it use to work..
Its for sure NO-ONE here has "upgraded" to Z/OS PL/I for Windows
and probably no-one ever will before IBM completes its planned final
denouement of PL/I in
a couple of years..
William M. Klein
"a Z/OS PL/I for Windows pkg"
So you are correct (for a change) there isn't anyone who has upgraded to it.
For any other question (to correct your publicly stated misconceptions on how
the product works), check out the manual for yourself at:
http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg27007348
As far as IBM selling copies of its "Websphere Developer for z/OS" product,
there have certainly been lots of sales (as reported at IBM user groups) as well
as the fact that many copies are "given away" with other IBM product purchases.
As far as upgrade pricing and ordering, check out the announcement at:
http://www-306.ibm.com/fcgi-bin/common/ssi/ssialias?infotype=an&subtype=ca&appname=Demonstration&htmlfid=897/ENUS205-304#@2h@79@
and look for,
"To WS Developer Authorized User D553DLL
from VA COBOL User or VA PL/I
User TRDUP LIC+SW MAINT 12 MO"
(there are some other upgrade paths as well).
***
So, I repeat my original question,
Do you ever check out your facts before you post your misconceptions?
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"David Frank" <dave_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44f16f10$0$20251$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
David Frank
> ain't no such thing as
> "a Z/OS PL/I for Windows pkg"
>
> So you are correct (for a change) there isn't anyone who has upgraded to
> it.
>
> For any other question (to correct your publicly stated misconceptions on
> how the product works), check out the manual for yourself at:
>
> http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg27007348
>
Its a old manual that has NADA to say about Z/OS PL/I for Windows
> As far as IBM selling copies of its "Websphere Developer for z/OS"
> product, there have certainly been lots of sales (as reported at IBM user
> groups) as well as the fact that many copies are "given away" with other
> IBM product purchases.
>
But none by Windows ONLY users
> As far as upgrade pricing and ordering, check out the announcement at:
>
> http://www-306.ibm.com/fcgi-bin/common/ssi/ssialias?infotype=an&subtype=ca&appname=Demonstration&htmlfid=897/ENUS205-304#@2h@79@
>
> and look for,
>
> "To WS Developer Authorized User D553DLL
> from VA COBOL User or VA PL/I
> User TRDUP LIC+SW MAINT 12 MO"
>
> (there are some other upgrade paths as well).
>
> ***
>
> So, I repeat my original question,
> Do you ever check out your facts before you post your misconceptions?
>
>
<<< begin snip from Yudkin to Vowels message
> >> >> So it seems that IBM is pulling support, at least for certain
>> >> customers.
>> >
>> > Not true. I copied your post to Peter Elderon, and he replied thus:
>> >
>> > "Service for VisualAge PL/I for Windows was discontinued earlier this
>> > year, but PL/I for Windows is still supported and available in WSED"
> Bill's statement that IBM pulled support is correct. Your response that it
> is "not true" is incorrect, as Peter's response confirms.
> One is required to purchase the new product in order to get support. That
> new product costs twice as much as the old one, and there is no "upgrade
> path" as far as purchasing is concerned (the compiler itself is the same
> of course).
> I am not surprised that many here are quite upset - I am too.
>>> end Yudkin quote
Soo, what would a NEW customer NOW have to pay to compile/run PL/I apps on
his PC?
You have to agree that some clarification is needed,
I may just email Elderon asking if its NOW possible to create a
self-contained windows exe
that can be run on anyones Windows PC without WSED client software
installed, stay tuned...
robin
>
> "robin" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:ujWHg.18225$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > "David Frank" <dave_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:44eed2db$0$20217$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
> >
> >> With the CANCELLATION of VA PL/I
> >
> > This was replaced by Websphere PL/I.
> > I and others have told you that many times.
>
> The so-called replacement does not generate a Windows.exe it generates
> a Java IL output that must run in the Websphere Java IL interpretator which
> is
> bound to be slower.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
robin
>
> How do you use PL/I with a MAC ?
I wouldn't want to.
William M. Klein
>
> "William M. Klein" <wmk...@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:DUeIg.671666$tQ4.5...@fe01.news.easynews.com...
>> ain't no such thing as
>> "a Z/OS PL/I for Windows pkg"
>>
>> So you are correct (for a change) there isn't anyone who has upgraded to it.
>>
>> For any other question (to correct your publicly stated misconceptions on how
>> the product works), check out the manual for yourself at:
>>
>> http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg27007348
>>
>
> Its a old manual that has NADA to say about Z/OS PL/I for Windows
>
Poor David,
he can't even read. The manual is quite clear when it says,
"Fourth Edition (May 2005)
This edition applies to WebSphere Developer for zSeries PL/I for Windows 6.0,
5639-D65, and to any subsequent releases until otherwise indicated in new
editions or technical newsletters. Make sure you are using the correct edition
for the level of the product."
Yes, the manual is a little over a year odl, but there hasn't been a new release
since then - so why should there be a new manual?
As the manual indicates, BESIDES providing a Windows environment for z/OS
targetted programs, it is also the product (and the only one currently supported
by IBM) for doing PL/I development targeted for Windows.
I woudl love to know how YOU (who can't even read a manual) know how many
developers have and have not purchased this product for Windows development. I
know that I don't know - other than knowing that there have been SOME. I am
even willing to say that there aren't many participants in this newsgroup who
have purchased it, but if you think PL/I developers all read this newsgroup,
then I assume you think the same for Fortran developers ALL participating in the
Fortran newsgroup.
David Frank
>
>
> You have to agree that some clarification is needed,
> I may just email Elderon asking if its NOW possible to create a
> self-contained windows exe
> that can be run on anyones Windows PC without WSED client software
> installed, stay tuned...
>
>
I did inquire yesterday and got a prompt reply saying:
====
yes, of course
- Peter
"David Frank" <dave_...@hotmail.com> wrote on 08/27/2006 05:11:18 AM:
> Hi Peter,
> Can Websphere PL/I create a EXE such that it can be executed on anyone's
> Windows
> machine without any kind of Websphere support client first being
> installed?
>
==========
robin
>
> "David Frank" <dave_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:44f18726$0$20253$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
> > You have to agree that some clarification is needed,
> > I may just email Elderon asking if its NOW possible to create a
> > self-contained windows exe
> > that can be run on anyones Windows PC without WSED client software
> > installed, stay tuned...
>
> I did inquire yesterday and got a prompt reply saying:
> ====
> yes, of course
Natuarally, because you don't know what you are talking about.
William M. Klein
works.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"David Frank" <dave_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44f2aa8d$0$20217$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
Tim C.
>Its for sure NO-ONE here has "upgraded" to Z/OS PL/I for Windows
We're definitely not going to. We'll keep DB2-UDB but that's the only IBM
product we'll be having.
--
Tim C.
David Frank
"Tim C." <tim.cha...@aon.at> wrote in message
news:vbq7f2djth025id79...@4ax.com...
Will you send me a static-linked "hello world".exe file to prove its
possible
to distribute a self-contained VA Windows exe ?
robin
>
> Will you send me a static-linked "hello world".exe file to prove its
> possible
> to distribute a self-contained VA Windows exe ?
IBM has just told you that it is.
Why don't you instead buy the product and check it
out for yourself.
David Frank
> "David Frank" <dave_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:44f40591$0$20223$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
>>
>> Will you send me a static-linked "hello world".exe file to prove its
>> possible
>> to distribute a self-contained VA Windows exe ?
>
> IBM has just told you that it is.
>
I asked whether Websphere PL/I could and got a yes..
The only Elderon response I found in the archives says NO
for Visual Age PL/I (look it up yourself)..
I further note that no-one here will say they have distributed such a
program..
> Why don't you instead buy the product and check it
> out for yourself.
>
There isnt a product that meets what OUGHT to be everyone's MINIMUM
criteria..
1. CURRENTLY being sold
2. for a O.S. thats being sold
3. for a computer thats being sold
4. PRICE < $3000
Why dont you update your ignorant FAQ eliminating ALL the NON-RESPONSIVE
links
to and to products not meeting above criteria ?
Oh, yes the reason you dont is there is NOTHING left..
William M. Klein
The correct and authoritative answer is available on the web. The manual that
you want to look at for VA PL/I for Windows can be found at:
ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/software/websphere/awdtools/pli/VAPLIPG.PDF
Look for the section (starting on page 132, called
"Chapter 7. Linking your program"
You may be particularly interested in the section called
"Producing an .EXE file"
***
Even if you won't (didn't) purchase any IBM PL/I compiler or product for
Windows, these are difficult questions to get the answer to. Just check the
manual for the product you want to know about.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"David Frank" <dave_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44f56efc$0$20219$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
robin
>
> "robin" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:CM5Jg.20083$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > "David Frank" <dave_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:44f40591$0$20223$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
> >>
> >> Will you send me a static-linked "hello world".exe file to prove its
> >> possible
> >> to distribute a self-contained VA Windows exe ?
> >
> > IBM has just told you that it is.
>
> I asked whether Websphere PL/I could and got a yes..
> The only Elderon response I found in the archives says NO
> for Visual Age PL/I (look it up yourself)..
> I further note that no-one here will say they have distributed such a
> program..
>
> > Why don't you instead buy the product and check it
> > out for yourself.
>
> There isnt a product that meets what OUGHT to be everyone's MINIMUM
> criteria..
> 1. CURRENTLY being sold
Yes, PL/I is currently being sold.
But you know that already, as we have told you several times
this year.
> 2. for a O.S. thats being sold
AFIK, Windows is still being sold.
> 3. for a computer thats being sold
Yes, I think that Intel-based PCs are stilll in the market place.
Did you check recently?
> 4. PRICE < $3000
As you well know, some PL/I compilers are free
for non-commercial use.
These include Kednos PL/I, and DR PL/I.
As well as these, discounts are available for student classes.
David Frank
Dont you understand elementary logic when
I say there is NO compiler that meets the 4 CRITERIA listed..
Kednos PL/I is for a computer/ O.S. that was
cancelled YEARS AGO so it doesnt meet the minimum criteria duh!
Your FAQ shows where to get DR PL/I but like most of your links it isnt
VALID, duh!
besides its for DOS not Windows and you admit its a dinky 64kb subset,
double-duh!
Thanks for confirming there is NO PL/I compiler that meets a rational
windows user's minimum criteria.
robin
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 7:20 PM
> Kednos PL/I is for a computer/ O.S. that was
> cancelled YEARS AGO so it doesnt meet the minimum criteria duh!
As I said, you are unable to remember anything for more
than 5 minutes.
The Kednos PL/I is available on INTEL. That information
has been posted in this newsgroup a number of times.
> Your FAQ shows where to get DR PL/I but like most of your links it isnt
> VALID, duh!
> besides its for DOS not Windows and you admit its a dinky 64kb subset,
> double-duh!
Click on START, then PROGRAMS, then MSDOS PROMPT
It satisfies requirements as to cost.
> Thanks for confirming there is NO PL/I compiler
IBM recently released and currently provides the new product,
Websphere PL/I for z/OS and Windows.
But you know that, don't you.
Tom Linden
> The Kednos PL/I is available on INTEL. That information
> has been posted in this newsgroup a number of times.
Not to get people's hopes up, we do not run on Intel, Only Alpha and VAX
but Liant (one of our licensees) does
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
glen herrmannsfeldt
> Not to get people's hopes up, we do not run on Intel, Only Alpha and VAX
> but Liant (one of our licensees) does
I thought Alpha was owned by intel now. Though I don't know
that they are planning to do much with it.
Then again, there is Itanic, oops, Itanium, which is doing even
less well than Alpha, though OpenVMS may be doing better on it
than Alpha.
-- glen
Donald L. Dobbs
Tom Linden wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:32:31 -0700, robin <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> The Kednos PL/I is available on INTEL. That information
>> has been posted in this newsgroup a number of times.
>
>
> Not to get people's hopes up, we do not run on Intel, Only Alpha and VAX
> but Liant (one of our licensees) does
>
Tom, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you run Kednos PL/I on an alpha
emulator on an Intel chip ??
Tom Linden
wrote:
Yes, and also VAX emulator. In fact I have an old PC with Linux and VAX
emulator installed and it runs about the same speed as a VAX 4000/100, at
least when I run
the PL/I benchmarks tests
robin
news:op.tffkvvj9tte90l@hyrrokkin...
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:32:31 -0700, robin <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > The Kednos PL/I is available on INTEL. That information
> > has been posted in this newsgroup a number of times.
>
> Not to get people's hopes up, we do not run on Intel, Only Alpha and VAX
> but Liant (one of our licensees) does
You must have forgotten that you have posted
this information a number of times.
"On the VMS platform, either VAX or Alpha --
" For personal use, the Kednos PL/I compiler
" and documentation may be downloaded free from http://www.kednos.com .
" To run the free version, you will need a
" Hobbyist license, which may be obtained by following the links
" at http://www.kednos.com .
" If you don't have VMS, you can run the CHARON VAX emulator on W2K."
Andrew Hamilton
>"Tom Linden" <t...@kednos-remove.com> wrote in message
>news:op.tffkvvj9tte90l@hyrrokkin...
>> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:32:31 -0700, robin <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The Kednos PL/I is available on INTEL. That information
>> > has been posted in this newsgroup a number of times.
>>
>> Not to get people's hopes up, we do not run on Intel, Only Alpha and VAX
>> but Liant (one of our licensees) does
>
Any chance you could persuade Liant to provide a free license for
personal use?