PL/I for windows
hschm...@hotmail.com
Hanz
Bill Buckels
<hschm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>So: What is the web address for the demo PL/I for windows???
Hi Hanz,
Try This:
ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/ps/products/pli/demos/
Windows: Download PLIWINTB.ZIP
Bill
hschm...@hotmail.com
Hanz
William M. Klein
That "demo" version is NOT compatible with currently supported PL/I compilers
(on any platform).
It certainly will give you a "free" (demo) version of a PL/I compiler for
Windows, but not one that is current in functionality.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Bill Buckels" <bbuc...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:H5qCl.30935$Q42....@newsfe12.iad...
hschm...@hotmail.com
Thanx
Hanz
William M. Klein
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rdz/
That product can be used for development of PL/I programs targeted for either
the Windows or z/OS production environments. It includes a PL/I* compiler
"fully compatible" with that available on other IBM platforms (such as z/OS and
AIX).
What IBM does *not* currently provide/support is:
A) a "stand-alone" PL/I compiler for Windows
B) a free PL/I compiler for Windows
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
<hschm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xt2dnc7a9MW8j3jU...@lhtot.com...
Bill Buckels
>IBM fully supports PL/I for Windows as a COMPONENT of the RDz product.
Is "Full of Support" therefore Oxymoronic or is IBM FULL of it when it comes
to PL/I for Windows?
>A) a "stand-alone" PL/I compiler for Windows
Required to fully support PL/I for Windows as in Microsoft's Full Support
for their Windows Language Products.
>B) a free PL/I compiler for Windows
Required to fully support PL/I for Windows as in Microsoft's Full Support
for their Windows Language Products.
>That "demo" version is NOT compatible with currently supported PL/I
>compilers (on any platform).
It's what IBM support as a "demo" (it comes from them). Are you asserting
that IBM provides FULLY crippled support for a compatible PL/I "demo" in
Windows?
>It certainly will give you a "free" (demo) version of a PL/I compiler for
>Windows, but not one that is current in functionality.
If it's all they offer as a free version then it is the CURRENT state of
functionality for IBM's free version...
Hanz wrote:
> So there is NO PL/I for windows....
Actually there seems to be two and one seems to be fuller (with support,
functionality, and cost) and the other emptier... PL/I for Windows would
seem to have at least 2 chances with many; FAT and SLIM:)
Bill
William M. Klein
"remnant" from a previous IBM product. They haven't taken down the page, but
they don't provide any way of getting there - much less a description of what is
available from that page.
It is simply NOT a "supported" demo product - as it doesn't demonstrate any
product that you can purchase from IBM (today).
Compare it to the RDz product that IS referenced by many IBM web pages, that you
can purchase, and for which IBM continues to provide upgrades and fixes.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Bill Buckels" <bbuc...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:oEaFl.38402$GU6....@newsfe09.iad...
Bill Buckels
>Try and find a reference to that page from any other IBM page. It is a
>"remnant" from a previous IBM product.
I notice we have started talking about products and no longer are talking
about programming languages.
>It is simply NOT a "supported" demo product - as it doesn't demonstrate any
>product that you can purchase from IBM (today).
So your definition of a "supported" product is one that is "for sale" and
has MARKETING links from the Vendor's MARKETING Web Pages? And all this talk
of "previous product" seems (again) oxymoronic.
>They haven't taken down the page, but they don't provide any way of getting
>there - much less a description of what is available from that page.
It's not a page is it? Clearly the FTP site has a readme and I have clearly
assumed that anyone interested in having a look at a computer language would
not get hung-up on whether some BLUE SUIT had ordered the secretary to
create a webpage for some Mouse Master and other BDU's. FTP protocol works
as well as HTP for this purpose and certainly qualifies as a supported
reference.
Also Consider for example that Motorola (Symbol Technologies) still (quietly
but fully) support the Symbol PDT3100 Handheld Scanner (1980's) which runs
DR-DOS 3.3 and I still support it with my software which provides the ways
and means to order food in a large portion of Canada's Arctic. The Microsoft
16 bit C compiler is still provided as part of that support as well. Tell an
Inuit baby that the milk that came in on the Twin Otter does not exist.
That's not to say I don't develop for Windows Mobile and Windows CE on their
MC9090G using Visual Studio 2008. As a matter of fact I do both. But support
doesn't stop just because some BLUE SUIT decides to change a webpage.
>Compare it to the RDz product that IS referenced by many IBM web pages,
>that you can purchase, and for which IBM continues to provide upgrades and
>fixes.
I did and I have and so what? Here's what the OP asked:
Hanz <hschm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>What is the web address for the demo PL/I for windows???
I gave him the link from Robin's page that I used when I downloaded Visual
Age PL/I. That IS the demo. As far as this other:
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/pli/pliwin/
"VisualAge PL/I for Windows - VisualAge PL/I is no longer marketed by IBM.
The PL/I compiler function is included in Rational Developer for System z."
In other words, one must purchase RUP and they get PL/I as a "freebie"... a
"carrot" as it were. That's like saying CCM are still making bicycles but no
longer marketing them so you need to order a car from GM and the "bicycle
functionality" will be thrown in for free.
Here's the link for the trial. Does it contain PL/I? Who knows if "bicycle
functionality" is thrown-in:
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rdz/
To me the whole mess is not REALLY supported and certainly not "FULLY"
supported except in the context of "Full of BS"! My BLUE SUIT is only used
at funerals and occasions of other bad news. I wear my BLUE JEANS when I am
programming and doing other REAL WORK. So it is easy to see how I might be
misled into believing that reality is getting something rather than nothing.
Go figger...
Bill
William M. Klein
software or whatever) that vendor xyz says is supported. The "demo" version of
PL/I for Windows that is the subject of this thread is NOT something that IBM
claims is supported (any where in their printed or online documentation).
Therefore, in my definition, it is not supported.
You can continue to argue any way you want - just as you can continue using that
software - as long as it works for you.
I know, understand, and am reporting the IBM position on this particular piece
of software and don't see any useful reason for continuing to discuss it.
To "clarify" matters, it would be nice if IBM actually "cleaned up" that FTP
site and got rid of that download option, but even if they don't, it doesn't
change their position on it (or mine).
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Bill Buckels" <bbuc...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:LmpFl.17608$FR3....@newsfe04.iad...
Bill Buckels
>You can continue to argue any way you want - just as you can continue using
>that software - as long as it works for you.
I do most of my Windows development in Microsoft languages although I do
some Qt cross-platform C++. PL/I is more of a curiosity than anything to me,
but I marvel that such a good language wasn't taken forward instead of some
of the stuff that I use. Having said that I will probably continue to use
PL/I as much as I have been.
>I know, understand, and am reporting the IBM position on this particular
>piece of software and don't see any useful reason for continuing to discuss
>it.
You are right.
>To "clarify" matters, it would be nice if IBM actually "cleaned up" that
>FTP site and got rid of that download option, but even if they don't, it
>doesn't change their position on it (or mine).
Very well then:)
Bill
hschm...@hotmail.com
Can't load "http://wwwe-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rdz/".
All I want is PL/I.. not a whole system.
Well I tried.........
Hanz
Bill Buckels
<hschm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Well I tried.........
Hi Hanz,
I sent you PM on this-all!
Blue-Suits, Blue-Skies, Blue-Sun, and other B-S:) May your all your PL's be
1! - Bill
William M. Klein
Just because IBM doesn't offer a "poor peon's" PL/I product, doesn't mean
that there isn't or won't be one that you can use. I know that there is
continuing work on the GCC PL/I. As someone who is working with the OpenCOBOL
project on their gcc/COBOL compiler, I would think that may be where you should
look (and see what you can do to help that project).
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
<hschm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:49E6892...@hotmail.com...
Tim C.
<news:49E6892...@hotmail.com> :
> So we poor peons can't use pl/i under windows.
>
> Can't load "http://wwwe-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rdz/".
>
> All I want is PL/I.. not a whole system.
>
> Well I tried.........
>
> Hanz
That's the reason we're phasing it out. Or will be when the new stuff
starts being written. We'll use the last version of PLI/windows we have -
until the new system is up or until it breaks with whatever version of
Windows we will be running at the time.
--
Tim C.
Bill Buckels
It is amazing that someone looking for an affordable compiler product must
write their own. And the project you are referring to has been going-on for
7 years now.
http://pl1gcc.sourceforge.net/
Bill
Bill Gunshannon
"Bill Buckels" <bbuc...@mts.net> writes:
> "William M. Klein" <wmk...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote: "GCC PL/I"
>
> It is amazing that someone looking for an affordable compiler product must
> write their own.
It is equally amazing that people who get paid to write code expect
other people to just give theirs away.
> And the project you are referring to has been going-on for
> 7 years now.
>
> http://pl1gcc.sourceforge.net/
The true nature of the GNU world. Projects start as whims and stagnate
when that whim becomes boring.
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Bill Buckels
"Tim C." <spam...@tele2.at> wrote:
>That's the reason we're phasing it out. Or will be when the new stuff
>starts being written.
When exactly will that be?
>We'll use the last version of PLI/windows we have - until the new system is
>up or until it breaks with whatever version of Windows we will be running
>at the time.
I still don't get it. You've got a good language and no affordable compiler.
Something doesn't ring true here... is it perhaps because nobody except
mainframe programmers are using PL/I anymore so there is no real market for
a Windows version for the "common man".
This sounds like a "cut our losses - PL/I is dead on the PC aka low hanging
fruit" strategy.
Or perhaps if it were mine would I be ramming-it up Microsoft's VB.NET butt,
or would I be afraid of retaliation so cower behind a mainframe programmer
and grab some sales that way?
What a terribly embarassing and tragic end for a good language.
Bill
Bill Buckels
"Bill Gunshannon" <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>It is equally amazing that people who get paid to write code expect other
>people to just give theirs away.
I don't really Bill. I also realize that there isn't enough Market Share to
economically offer a PL/I compiler at a lower cost or as a standalone
product in the Windows market.
>The true nature of the GNU world. Projects start as whims and stagnate
>when that whim becomes boring.
I don't disagree. In this case though I agree with Bill Klein in principle
that the project needs help, but in practice the people with the expertise
to actually pull-this-off are not interested.
If this were a Microsoft Language incentive probably a bunch of programmers
would be dispatched from Redmond and finish the GCC project covertly making
sure that it had a wonderful Windows and Linux IDE making it a
cross-platform dream for application development but Microsoft sells OS's
not hardware.
IBM probably has a different strategy:) and probably cares little about
sustaining a language where they don't see a sale for hardware.
Bill
Tim C.
<news:fhGFl.52268$GU6....@newsfe09.iad> :
>>That's the reason we're phasing it out. Or will be when the new stuff
>>starts being written.
>
> When exactly will that be?
As soon as we can. :)
--
Tim C.
robin
> "William M. Klein" <wmk...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >IBM fully supports PL/I for Windows as a COMPONENT of the RDz product.
>
> Is "Full of Support" therefore Oxymoronic or is IBM FULL of it when it comes
> to PL/I for Windows?
IBM provides and supports PL/I for Windows.
This compiler is at the same level of PL/I that is
available on the mainframe.
The current version of PL/I for Windows is at least 7.0,
maybe even 7.1 by now.
robin
> So there is NO PL/I for windows....
Nonsense. Bill Klein is just having a bad day.
robin
news:yZ7Fl.153605$UR4.1...@en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com...
> Please DO note the date on that file. It is now over a decade old.
That's irrelevant. A demo version is a demo version.
You try it out, and if you like it, you buy the product.
> That "demo" version is NOT compatible with currently supported PL/I compilers
> (on any platform).
It is compatible with all "currently supported PL/I compilers".
Current compilers are a superset of the demo product,
except for the pre-processor.
Bill Buckels
robin
> IBM fully supports PL/I for Windows as a COMPONENT of the RDz product. See:
>
> http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rdz/
>
> That product can be used for development of PL/I programs targeted for either
> the Windows or z/OS production environments. It includes a PL/I* compiler
> "fully compatible" with that available on other IBM platforms (such as z/OS and
> AIX).
>
> What IBM does *not* currently provide/support is:
>
> A) a "stand-alone" PL/I compiler for Windows
IBM provides a "stand-alone" compiler for Windows.
It is continually upgraded. That means it is SUPPORTED.
It does not require anything else to compile and run.
That means that it RUNS UNDER WINDOWS.
> B) a free PL/I compiler for Windows
The demo version is FREE.
robin
news:K5dFl.123763$Za7....@en-nntp-08.dc1.easynews.com...
> Try and find a reference to that page from any other IBM page. It is a
> "remnant" from a previous IBM product. They haven't taken down the page, but
> they don't provide any way of getting there - much less a description of what is
> available from that page.
>
> It is simply NOT a "supported" demo product - as it doesn't demonstrate any
> product that you can purchase from IBM (today).
It demonstrates PL/I.
If you like it, you can buy PL/I from IBM.
> Compare it to the RDz product that IS referenced by many IBM web pages, that you
> can purchase, and for which IBM continues to provide upgrades and fixes.
Anyone CAN buy IBM's current PL/I for Windows.
IBM continues to upgrade PL/I for WINDOWS.
It CONTINUES to provide fixes.
The current version is 7.0 or later.
robin
> So we poor peons can't use pl/i under windows.
>
> Can't load "http://wwwe-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rdz/".
>
> All I want is PL/I.. not a whole system.
You can purchase PL/I for Windows.
It's currently available.
If you want, you can try out the demo version first.
William M. Klein
news:bUIFl.3998$y61....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "William M. Klein" <wmk...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:hM8Fl.187426$rp7.1...@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
>> A) a "stand-alone" PL/I compiler for Windows
>
> IBM provides a "stand-alone" compiler for Windows.
> It is continually upgraded. That means it is SUPPORTED.
>
> It does not require anything else to compile and run.
> That means that it RUNS UNDER WINDOWS.
>
Please point me to where IBM provides a "continually" upgraded stand-alone
PL/I compiler for Windows? The *only* continually upgraded IBM PL/I compiler for
Windows that I am aware of is the COMPONENT of RDz. If there is another one, I
would really be interested in where it is (or where it is documented).
The last time I asked you (in this forum) for a reference to such a compiler,
you never replied.
William M. Klein
> "William M. Klein" <wmk...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:K5dFl.123763$Za7....@en-nntp-08.dc1.easynews.com...
>> It is simply NOT a "supported" demo product - as it doesn't demonstrate any
>> product that you can purchase from IBM (today).
>
> It demonstrates PL/I.
> If you like it, you can buy PL/I from IBM.
>
>> Compare it to the RDz product that IS referenced by many IBM web pages, that
>> you
>> can purchase, and for which IBM continues to provide upgrades and fixes.
>
> Anyone CAN buy IBM's current PL/I for Windows.
> IBM continues to upgrade PL/I for WINDOWS.
> It CONTINUES to provide fixes.
> The current version is 7.0 or later.
>
Please provide a product number and a method for buying "IBM PL/I for Windows"
today - that is NOT by buying the entire RDz product.
Bill Buckels
"robin" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>You can purchase PL/I for Windows.
>It's currently available.
Perhaps, depending on which expert we listen to, but like buying a box of
popcorn to get a prize... the IBM website says:
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/pli/pliwin/
"VisualAge PL/I for Windows - VisualAge PL/I is no longer marketed by IBM.
The PL/I compiler function is included in Rational Developer for System z."
Here's the link for the trial. Does it contain PL/I? Who markets Rational
Developer for System z?
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rdz/
OTOH when tried to point Hanz to a demo I had some idea that an identity
crisis would occur.
Bill
Bill Buckels
"William M. Klein" <wmk...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Robin, Please provide a product number and a method for buying "IBM PL/I
>for Windows" today - that is NOT by buying the entire RDz product.
Bill, I wish that you are wrong, but I don't think you are.
Another thing that I find interesting is that Hanz has been using PL/I since
about the time I started high school and I'll be 60 in 3 years, and you
basically told him that he should go work on a free compiler that may never
be finished in my lifetime if he wants a Windows version at a reasonable
price or even a standalone Windows version:)
Just very interesting... I don't think either you or Robin are having a bad
day... nothing wrong with either of you... or Bill Gunshannon either...
Bill
Bill Buckels
"Tim C." <spam...@tele2.at> wrote:
>We'll use the last version of PLI/windows we have - until the new system is
>up or until it breaks with whatever version of Windows we will be running
>at the time.
When you have the new version of PL/I why not make the previous version an
open source project and give it to the community? It seems to ne that IBM
doesn't really care about PL/I except as part of the programming tools for
use on their mainframes.
At the same time, the language looks pretty neat and capable. What good
would the old PL/I for Windows be to IBM if it has a shiny new version that
is advanced... I am assuming that the old version will be forward
compatible... so having an active open source working version might even
create additional Canon-fodder for big-iron programmers. Eventually the pond
needs to be restocked unless the plan is to let the species die-off.
Bill
Richard Brady
[snip}
> It seems to me that IBM
> doesn't really care about PL/I ...
IBM is a corporation. As such it "cares" only about profit.
>
> At the same time, the language looks pretty neat and capable. What good
It is indeed a neat and capable language. Hence the religious ferver
you sense from its practitioners. It's a very logically structured
language which allows one to write programs as he/she thinks, provided
the thinker has an organized mind. And at the same time the programmer
doesn't have to go through hoops to express mathematical calculations or
modify character strings.
> would the old PL/I for Windows be to IBM if it has a shiny new version that
> is advanced... I am assuming that the old version will be forward
> compatible... so having an active open source working version might even
> create additional Canon-fodder for big-iron programmers. Eventually the pond
> needs to be restocked unless the plan is to let the species die-off.
Perhaps the folks who lobbied IBM to make oRexx open source could tell
us how they did it: their contacts and such. But they did have the Rexx
Language Association as an entity to do the lobbying and to receive the
source code.
>
> Bill
>
Good thoughts all, Bill. Thank you.
Richard Brady
Peter Flass
> Bill Buckels wrote:
>
>> would the old PL/I for Windows be to IBM if it has a shiny new version
>> that is advanced... I am assuming that the old version will be forward
>> compatible... so having an active open source working version might
>> even create additional Canon-fodder for big-iron programmers.
>> Eventually the pond needs to be restocked unless the plan is to let
>> the species die-off.
>
> Perhaps the folks who lobbied IBM to make oRexx open source could tell
> us how they did it: their contacts and such. But they did have the Rexx
> Language Association as an entity to do the lobbying and to receive the
> source code.
>
Never gonna happen. All IBM's 'doze PL/I compilers, and the OS/2
version, are, I believe, the same technology that's still being
developed as the z/OS PL/I "Enterprise" compilers and the rdz version
(how's that supposed to be capitalized?) There are open-source PL/I
compilers that could be used as a basis for development if someone wanted.
As far as someone who wants a free PL/I compiler having to help develop
it, isn't that what the C people did? You can't sit on your @ss and
wait for someone else to do it for you.
PL/I for gcc has been limping along with one, or maybe two part-time
developers for quite a while. Two more volunteers could halve the time
required to get a working compiler.
Bill Gunshannon
Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> writes:
>
> PL/I for gcc has been limping along with one, or maybe two part-time
> developers for quite a while. Two more volunteers could halve the time
> required to get a working compiler.
Ever read "The Mythical Man-Month"?
Richard Brady
> In article <gs8kue$ovo$1...@news.motzarella.org>,
> Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> writes:
>> PL/I for gcc has been limping along with one, or maybe two part-time
>> developers for quite a while. Two more volunteers could halve the time
>> required to get a working compiler.
>
> Ever read "The Mythical Man-Month"?
>
> bill
>
enthusiastic individual joins the team and brings new energy to a
project, someone with a desire to make her/his mark or a desire to see a
project to a successful end, perhaps that could work differently.
Brooks was working in an environment where the only leaders were the
ones IBM selected. We know that the corporate leader is not necessarily
the heart of an organization and it is the heart that drives a team.
Richard
James J. Weinkam
> "robin" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:bUIFl.3998$y61....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> "William M. Klein" <wmk...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:hM8Fl.187426$rp7.1...@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
> <snip>
>>> A) a "stand-alone" PL/I compiler for Windows
>> IBM provides a "stand-alone" compiler for Windows.
>> It is continually upgraded. That means it is SUPPORTED.
>>
>> It does not require anything else to compile and run.
>> That means that it RUNS UNDER WINDOWS.
>>
> Robin,
> Please point me to where IBM provides a "continually" upgraded stand-alone
> PL/I compiler for Windows? The *only* continually upgraded IBM PL/I compiler for
> Windows that I am aware of is the COMPONENT of RDz. If there is another one, I
> would really be interested in where it is (or where it is documented).
>
the compiler and the code it produces run on windows without any requirement
to be in communication with a host system, and unbundled, i.e., sold
separately for a price that is commensurate with its value.
As things stand, if I am correctly informed, you can only get the windows
compiler and runtime as part of a package of mainframe products that costs
several times what a Windows PL/I compiler should sell for.
So Robin is right -- you can buy it; but everyone else is right too -- if all
you need is the windows compiler, who can justify the cost?
There was a time when i admired the way IBM treated its customers, but that
time is long in the past.
Bill Buckels
"James J. Weinkam" <j...@cs.sfu.ca> wrote:
>There was a time when i admired the way IBM treated its customers, but that
>time is long in the past.
Disclaimer - I, Bill Buckels, do not guarantee, or warranty, in whole or in
part, any of this, and further do not offer support for any of this. All of
this is provided as-is.
International Blue Suit - IBS
I lost most of my respect for IBM when I developed device driver interfaces
for the IBM 4694 Cash Register in the early 1990's.
Our product was international and bundled with IBM's by their POS dealers
worldwide. Yet I couldn't even report a bug much less get a driver (or
several) fixed. IMO the attitude was clearly "We are IBM. Who are you?"
Finally, what I did was to lock the driver set down to one that we provided
to match our interface which was the least buggy one their geniuses had
managed and cut my own disks. If you wanted support from us you were
required to use the disks I approved not IBMnd to follow my techdoc. Even
the Raleigh NC IBM reseller bundled my driver set and left IBM's on the
disk. I got a standing ovation from our reseller channel at our annual
meeting for my work on the IBM mess that year. But, hey, I completely solved
the problem and my stuff is still being used even today as far as I know.
About 2 years ago I lost the last shred of respect I had for IBM. It was
already coming because of some problems that I had been having at work.
So anyway, I wanted to redistribute a portion of a version of PC Storyboard
that they sold in the '80's with my ClipShop bundle. A little BSAVED image
editor called Picture Maker. I built a complete install for DOSBox and
everything. I followed their protocol religiously and they (their legal
department etc.) dicked-me around months then said no. No reason given. This
was despite the fact that this particular piece could not have possibly been
used since the '80's and despite the fact that I am a Global Partner.
There are some that would question my sense of entitlement to what someone
else wrote including IBM but here is the way the beast works;)
x---x
1. Leader - REQUIREMENTS - There are MANY programmers like me that persist
after companies rise and fall.
People - We (I use the term loosely) run the software industry in the world
and we decide what to buy and what to use to program with and what and how
to integrate, etc., defacto, ad-nauseum. Amen.
2. Leader - It's not some suit in the corner office and if some suit in the
corner office gets too pushy we just get rid of him (or vice-versa).
People - When IBM or anyone else pisses-us off we just get rid of them (or
vice-versa). We don't need to use their stuff. We have lots of stuff from
everyone else because everyone else wants to do business and keep us happy
with good affordable products (or not, their choice, repeat as necessary).
Amen.
3. Leader - DNR and LOST and LAST RESPECTs - The modifiers to the above have
to do with ethics and treating the client properly.
People - If the client (or our employer) would be at risk or even not derive
a significant benefit from decommisioning individuals or products that
interfere with our job satisfaction many of us will use any convenient
opportunity to avoid said individuals or products and passively (or
aggresively) watch without emotion. Amen.
4. Leader - FORGIVENESS - not in the vocabulary of some, but generally if
the afflicted individual or vendor (IBM or anyone else) demonstrates
unconditional surrender and recants all previous abominations and performs
the necessary acts of contrition like giving us free compilers and other
good stuff (Microsoft does this regularly which is why I love them), we can
allow ourselves to be cautiously optimistic.
People - However if attitude is not correct and dominace does not remain in
our hands then EXCOMMUNICATION is unavoidable even by the nicest of us.
x---x
I really can't understand why IBM or anyone else would want to break the
rules of engagement. Hey, I didn't invent them... I just follow them. We
want perks.
Bill
Peter Flass
> "James J. Weinkam" <j...@cs.sfu.ca> wrote:
>
>> There was a time when i admired the way IBM treated its customers, but that
>> time is long in the past.
>
I agree, with the caveat that there isn't one "IBM", but many. Some
still do a good job though many don't. I'm sorry to hear Bill's story
about the drivers. I can somewhat understand IBM's thinking on this:
who's to say, for example, who owns the rights to software proffered by
someone outside of IBM's control, also there's no guarantee without
detailed analysis that some software tricks weren't used that would make
the code less portable than IBM would want. On the other hand, the
areas where IBM has been most successful are those where they welcomed
customer input and modifications. Look at JES2 and VM vs. the piles of
software that have come and gone without solving the customers' problems.
To bring this back to windows PL/I, IBM is no longer really much in the
PC hardware business and almost not at all in PC software. They have no
interest in selling standalone windows software, only stuff that in some
way bolsters their mainframe business. This is, I suspect, the "why" of
RDz vs. a standalone windows compiler. They're selling a
mainframe-oriented development tool that happens to run on a windows
workstation.
It's the small enterprenurial(sp?) companies that we should be expecting
to give us what we want, not the biggies. The most popular DOS C
compiler didn't come from AT&T, it came from Borland.
Peter Flass
> "James J. Weinkam" <j...@cs.sfu.ca> wrote:
>
>> There was a time when i admired the way IBM treated its customers, but that
>> time is long in the past.
>
I agree, with the caveat that there isn't one "IBM", but many. Some
robin
>
> "robin" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> >You can purchase PL/I for Windows.
> >It's currently available.
>
> Perhaps, depending on which expert we listen to, but like buying a box of
> popcorn to get a prize... the IBM website says:
>
> http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/pli/pliwin/
>
> "VisualAge PL/I for Windows - VisualAge PL/I is no longer marketed by IBM.
That's because the product was renamed.
After VA PL/I it ws Enterprise PL/I,
then Websphere PL/I.
It's now called "PL/I for Windows".
robin
> "robin" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:bUIFl.3998$y61....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > "William M. Klein" <wmk...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:hM8Fl.187426$rp7.1...@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
> <snip>
> >> A) a "stand-alone" PL/I compiler for Windows
> >
> > IBM provides a "stand-alone" compiler for Windows.
> > It is continually upgraded. That means it is SUPPORTED.
> >
> > It does not require anything else to compile and run.
> > That means that it RUNS UNDER WINDOWS.
> >
> upgraded stand-alone PL/I compiler for Windows?
Look in IBM's web site.
robin
> That's the reason we're phasing it out. Or will be when the new stuff
> starts being written.
That will, of course, be more costly than buying the compiler.
robin
> "robin" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:cUIFl.3999$y61...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > "William M. Klein" <wmk...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:K5dFl.123763$Za7....@en-nntp-08.dc1.easynews.com...
> <snip>
> >> It is simply NOT a "supported" demo product - as it doesn't demonstrate any
> >> product that you can purchase from IBM (today).
> >
> > It demonstrates PL/I.
> > If you like it, you can buy PL/I from IBM.
> >
> >> Compare it to the RDz product that IS referenced by many IBM web pages, that
> >> you
> >> can purchase, and for which IBM continues to provide upgrades and fixes.
> >
> > Anyone CAN buy IBM's current PL/I for Windows.
> > IBM continues to upgrade PL/I for WINDOWS.
> > It CONTINUES to provide fixes.
> > The current version is 7.0 or later.
> Please provide a product number and a method for buying
> "IBM PL/I for Windows" today
You can find that out by looking in IBM's web site.
William M. Klein
You simply refuse to answer - because you can't !!!
The current website ONLY points to the ENTIRE "rdz" product. That product
*does* include a PL/I compiler and run-time - along with a COBOL compiler and
run-time, a CICS emulator, along with IMS, Assembler, host connectivity, etc.
There simply is no product (from IBM) that you can buy (currently) that is a
PL/I compiler and run-time BY ITSELF (and that is what I mean by "stand alone
product").
If you want to buy the entire zSeries development "suite" that does include a
Pl/I compiler and run-time and then you want to us ONLY that portion, it can be
used by itself. If that is what you man by a "stand alone product" (i.e you
don't use those other parts that you have paid for), then it does exist.
If you mean anything else (i.e that IBM does sell a "PL/I" product for Windows -
that does not include LOTS and LOTS of other stuff - including a COBOL compiler,
then - as I have asked on multiple occasions - provide ANY detailed information
on it, such as a specific website, a product number, or anything else)
P.S. For anyone who thinks that I avoiding providing REAL information (the way
Robin is), the website for the product that I am referring to is at:
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rdz/
From the features page at:
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rdz/about/index.html
It states,
"- Provides an interactive workstation-based environment to help create,
maintain and reuse applications for traditional processing or for inclusion in
an SOA
- Provides quick and easy access to IBM z/OS datasets and UNIX System Services
Hierarchical File System (HFS) / System z File System (zFS) files
- Helps create Assembler, COBOL, PL/I, C, and C++, and Java applications via:
a.. Remote syntax check
b.. Content assist
c.. Visual BMS mapping and JCL generation capabilities
d.. Visual MFS editor
e.. Color coded editing
- Support for
a.. CICS
b.. IMS
c.. Batch
d.. DB2 and DB2 stored procedures"
* * * * *
If you consider purchasing THAT product as buying a "stand alone PL/I product",
then feel free to believe so. If Robin (or anyone else) can provide an equally
specific website for an IBM product that is "limited" to PL/I for Windows, I
would be most interested in seeing it.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"robin" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:qFGGl.4778$y61....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
hschm...@hotmail.com
Hanz
Bill Buckels
news:49EC0EE7...@hotmail.com...
>I AGREE....
I hate to say it:) but so do I.
robin
to the availability of
PL/I-F compiler,
DR PL/I for DOS,
and Kednos PL/I compiler.
Anonymous
don't expect .NET on a mainframe don't expect a real PL/I on your PC.
Why don't you stop bashing your head against the wall and download a
free copy of the GNAT Ada compiler for Windows. It's available for
almost every major platform and offers all of what PL/I does and
more. It has every bit as big a fan club as PL/I and is just as
obscure that everyone will think you've gone mad. Let them think what
they want. It's a great language and the freely available GNAT is as
good or better than most other offerings. You can thank me later.
Andrew Hamilton
Fair enough, Robin, but HOW do you run any of these compilers under
... Windows XP (or Vista)?
By the way, I guess I also agree with the people who say that you
aren't really answering the question. As I interpret the question,
people want to spend some "reasonable" amount of money to get some
file or files that install onto your Windows PC and compile PL/1
programs. For most people, that means a product called "XYZ for
Windows," and also doesn't require a mainframe or position itself as a
tool for offline development for mainframe programmers.
-AH
robin
> Robin,
> You simply refuse to answer - because you can't !!!
I have answered many times to correct the mis-information
that you have repeatedly posted.
> The current website ONLY points to the ENTIRE "rdz" product.
The IBM web site(s) also point(s) to the FREE demo PL/I compiler.
You can pick it up by doing a google, as others have done.
> That product
> *does* include a PL/I compiler and run-time -
Hooray! You have finally addmitted that it's available.
> along with a COBOL compiler and
> run-time, a CICS emulator, along with IMS, Assembler, host connectivity, etc.
>
> There simply is no product (from IBM) that you can buy (currently) that is a
> PL/I compiler and run-time BY ITSELF (and that is what I mean by "stand alone
> product").
A "stand-alone" product is one that does not depend on anything
else to run. Clearly, PL/I for Windows fits that bill, because
it runs under Windows WITHOUT REQUIRING ANYTHING OTHER THAN
Windows.
You are confusing that term with the term "bundled",
which means (and has always meant) that there are
various items sold together.
And anyone who wants to buy IBM's PL/I compiler for Windows
has been able to do so AT ANY TIME,
and CAN CURRENTLY DO SO.
William M. Klein
to buy the (non-demo)version of IBM's PL/I for Windows is in a
BUNDLED (your term)
product that also include a COBOL compiler and run-time, JCL, Assembler, C/C++,
CICS, IMS, etc components (and costs accordingly)?
Also, from what IBM (non-FTP) site is there a link to the PL/I demo (that is
over a decade old)?
Do you at least accept that if you go to
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/pli/
which says that it is talking about IBM's PL/I compilers that there is no way to
get to the free PL/I demo?
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"robin" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:Ui7Hl.5018$y61....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Tim C.
<news:Ui7Hl.5018$y61....@news-server.bigpond.net.au> :
> And anyone who wants to buy IBM's PL/I compiler for Windows
> has been able to do so AT ANY TIME,
> and CAN CURRENTLY DO SO.
But not on it's own.
He may have been confusing stand-alone with unbundled, but you are - as so
very often - unhelpfully nit-picking.
--
Tim C.
robin
news:bb2b243830a33aa1...@mixmaster.nymu.eu...
> PL/I is a great language but it is almost proprietary. Just like you
> don't expect .NET on a mainframe don't expect a real PL/I on your PC.
Several PL/I compilers (some subsets) are available on the PC.
They are available from IBM and other manufacturers,
and are available for a variety of operating systems.
IBM's PL/I for Windows is an extensive implementation of
PL/I, and would be considered to be a "real" PL/I.
Also available is VA PL/I for Windows, also "real";
it's the demp version.
Copies of the OS/2 PL/I have been purchased on ebay.
Perhaps also the Windows version, but I haven't been
looking out for that.
The PL/I-F compiler also is available, and that's "real" too.
> Why don't you stop bashing your head against the wall and download a
> free copy of the GNAT Ada compiler for Windows. It's available for
> almost every major platform and offers all of what PL/I does and
> more.
It doesn't.
Bill Buckels
>He may have been confusing stand-alone with unbundled, but you are - as so
>very often - unhelpfully nit-picking.
To me "stand-alone" meant "unbundled" until you mentioned it just now. That
actually was helpful although probably annoying to you. The other helpful
part of this discussion for me is to understand at the end why IBM doesn't
offer PL/I for Windows as an unbundled competively positioned Windows
Development Environment.
Regardless, it is already stand-alone and that wasn't really in question
here.
The preposterous part of all this is the suggestion that some old DR MS-DOS
product from 1982 should be considered in the same context as a 10 year old
demo, although I suppose if you consider one of Bill Klein's arguments that
basically says that it is all old stuff, it is not much good for serious
current users. I have the CP/M stuff as well as a bunch of other PL/I stuff
that is mostly real old stuff.
I also have a fully licenced personal version of Microsoft Visual Studio
2008 which Microsoft gave me for showing-up at Tech Days 2008 for a couple
of hundred dollar ticket. Guess what I'm gonna develop with?
PL/I was an important part of history in the CP/M and early MS-DOS days. I
had all DR languages back then, and Aztec C and Microsoft languages and
later Borland for a decade or so. I never gave-up on Microsoft and so glad I
didn't.
I remember making a conscious decision not to install OS2 for Windows after
a Modula programmer needed to borrow my Microsoft C 6.00 OS2 headers because
his compiler didn't come with OS2 stuff. Among the only OS-few that I knew
was an IBM employee who ran our Fidonet Node. My neighbor was still writing
MS-DOS programs in COBOL and PL/I and I was writing midi sequencers in
Windows 3.1 and Borland C++ 3.1 and also on the Mac in Think C. Linux was at
about version .92 and Unixware was being peddled by Novell.
This PL/I demo seems to be stuck back in the sands of those times and so
does this newsgroup in many ways.
Bill
Tim C.
<news:ZLjHl.18432$gC1....@newsfe19.iad> :
> To me "stand-alone" meant "unbundled" until you mentioned it just now. That
> actually was helpful although probably annoying to you.
It didn't bother me you saying stand-alone, I thought I knew what you meant
(and it seems I did). It was Robin's typically pedantic answer to this
question when he knows full well what you wanted to know.
--
Tim C.
Borked Pseudo Mailed
>> don't expect .NET on a mainframe don't expect a real PL/I on your PC.
>
> Several PL/I compilers (some subsets) are available on the PC.
> They are available from IBM and other manufacturers,
> and are available for a variety of operating systems.
And so? They're not real PL/I. PL/I doesn't have a standard, it's a
proprietary language. If you programmed in PL/I on the mainframe you
won't be satisfied with anything a hobbyist can afford to run on
Windows. Anyways you've never provided a single working link to any
product after many silly posts, so now we know you've nothing to add.
> IBM's PL/I for Windows is an extensive implementation of
> PL/I, and would be considered to be a "real" PL/I.
It depends on who's doing the considering.
>> Why don't you stop bashing your head against the wall and download a
>> free copy of the GNAT Ada compiler for Windows. It's available for
>> almost every major platform and offers all of what PL/I does and
>> more.
>
> It doesn't.
Yes, it does.
Tell us then, what does PL/I do that you can't do in Ada? Ada offers
every single feature that PL/I does and adds a whole bevy of useful
features and capabilities on top of them all. Your statement is pure
silliness and nonsense.
I've seen your postings before. You seem to be a person who likes to
create arguments where none existed before you arrived rather than
contributing useful information.
People are lamenting the situation that a PL/I compiler isn't readily
available. Therefore I offered a viable solution. Ada is a block
structured language that can solve all of the problems PL/I solves and
works well in all the places PL/I can be applied and more. There is a
free and freely available compilation system available, and it works
virtually the same on each of the many platforms it runs on. You can
run it on Windows, Linux, and many more operating systems.
As a PL/I programmer for many years, I see that Ada is a better
PL/I. Instead of sitting around crying why oh why can't I get a copy
of PL/I to run on Windows, I chose to move to Ada language. I also
chose to move off Windows, but you can well stay there as you wish.
You can carry on with your outlandish claims, I suppose no one will
continue listening to you.
Peter Flass
Why, thank you, "Anonymous." I think I'll jump right on it, real soon now.
Peter Flass
> "Tim C." <spam...@tele2.at> wrote:
>
>> He may have been confusing stand-alone with unbundled, but you are - as so
>> very often - unhelpfully nit-picking.
>
> To me "stand-alone" meant "unbundled" until you mentioned it just now. That
> actually was helpful although probably annoying to you. The other helpful
> part of this discussion for me is to understand at the end why IBM doesn't
> offer PL/I for Windows as an unbundled competively positioned Windows
> Development Environment.
I tried to post in response to similar comments a while ago, but I don't
think it made it thru. IBM currently hardware supports PC *hardware*.
I don't think they really offer any PC *software* at all unless it
somehow supports their mainframe biz, which RD/z does.
If you want any PC software, you'll have to look at smaller,
entreprenueral (Sp?) companies. Remember the most popular DOS C
compiler didn't come from AT&T, it came from Borland.
>
> I also have a fully licenced personal version of Microsoft Visual Studio
> 2008 which Microsoft gave me for showing-up at Tech Days 2008 for a couple
> of hundred dollar ticket. Guess what I'm gonna develop with?
You get what you pay for.
Peter Flass
>>> PL/I is a great language but it is almost proprietary. Just like you
>>> don't expect .NET on a mainframe don't expect a real PL/I on your PC.
>> Several PL/I compilers (some subsets) are available on the PC.
>> They are available from IBM and other manufacturers,
>> and are available for a variety of operating systems.
>
> And so? They're not real PL/I. PL/I doesn't have a standard, it's a
> proprietary language.
Bzzzt. PL/I has ANSI and ISO standards.
Peter Flass
> IBM currently hardware supports PC *hardware*. I
Oops, sorry. "hardware supports" = "hardly supports."
robin
news:11a28d17d12cf400...@pseudo.borked.net...
> >> PL/I is a great language but it is almost proprietary. Just like you
> >> don't expect .NET on a mainframe don't expect a real PL/I on your PC.
> >
> > Several PL/I compilers (some subsets) are available on the PC.
> > They are available from IBM and other manufacturers,
> > and are available for a variety of operating systems.
>
> And so? They're not real PL/I. PL/I doesn't have a standard, it's a
> proprietary language.
PL/I has two standards.
> If you programmed in PL/I on the mainframe you
> won't be satisfied with anything a hobbyist can afford to run on
> Windows.
IBM's PL/I is available to anyone who wants it.
> Anyways you've never provided a single working link to any
> product after many silly posts, so now we know you've nothing to add.
Information and links are available in the FAQ,
and have been for years.
> > IBM's PL/I for Windows is an extensive implementation of
> > PL/I, and would be considered to be a "real" PL/I.
>
> It depends on who's doing the considering.
IBM's implementation is definitive.
It implements the standard, with extensions.
> >> Why don't you stop bashing your head against the wall and download a
> >> free copy of the GNAT Ada compiler for Windows. It's available for
> >> almost every major platform and offers all of what PL/I does and
> >> more.
> >
> > It doesn't.
>
> Yes, it does.
>
> Tell us then, what does PL/I do that you can't do in Ada? Ada offers
> every single feature that PL/I does and adds a whole bevy of useful
> features and capabilities on top of them all. Your statement is pure
> silliness and nonsense.
It is apparent that you have not used any PL/I compiler
released in the past decade or so. I suggest that you
take a look at IBM's PL/I reference manual. There's one on-line.
> I've seen your postings before. You seem to be a person who likes to
> create arguments where none existed before you arrived rather than
> contributing useful information.
I have been here since the newsgroup was created.
In this thread, others started an argument.
I joined in to correct mis-information that was posted.
As to mis-information, your posting contains
a number of false statements that I have corrected here.
> People are lamenting the situation that a PL/I compiler isn't readily
> available.
It's readily available. It's currently for sale. You can buy it now.
Implementations are available from various manufacturers.
Zero-cost compilers are available for those who want.
Some have been mentioned already in this thread.
> Therefore I offered a viable solution. Ada is a block
> structured language that can solve all of the problems PL/I solves and
> works well in all the places PL/I can be applied and more. There is a
> free and freely available compilation system available, and it works
> virtually the same on each of the many platforms it runs on. You can
> run it on Windows, Linux, and many more operating systems.
AFIK, PL/I is not available on Linux.
However, it is available on most other systems
including Unix-based systems as well as (of course)
on the PC with Windows.
See the FAQ for details.
> As a PL/I programmer for many years, I see that Ada is a better
> PL/I. Instead of sitting around crying why oh why can't I get a copy
> of PL/I to run on Windows,
You could have purchased your own copy of PL/I for the
PC at any time since the mid 1980s.
>I chose to move to Ada language.
You can choose to use any language that you want.
> I also
> chose to move off Windows, but you can well stay there as you wish.
You can choose to run any OS that you want.
Peter Flass
[snip]
>
> IBM's implementation is definitive.
> It implements the standard, with extensions.
More or less.
[snip]
>
> AFIK, PL/I is not available on Linux.
Bill Buckels
"Peter Flass" <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>Soon. http://iron-spring.com/faq
But for now all the other links are broken?
Richard Brady
[snip]
> The preposterous part of all this is the suggestion that some old DR MS-DOS
> product from 1982 should be considered in the same context as a 10 year old
> demo, although I suppose if you consider one of Bill Klein's arguments that
> basically says that it is all old stuff, it is not much good for serious
> current users. I have the CP/M stuff as well as a bunch of other PL/I stuff
> that is mostly real old stuff.
>
> This PL/I demo seems to be stuck back in the sands of those times and so
> does this newsgroup in many ways.
>
> Bill
>
>
I'm not 100% sure, but
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/downloads/r/rdz/
looks to have a more recent demo of PL/I which runs on Windows. It's a
tad on the large size at 1.3G. The web-page says it's rdz 7.5.
Richard Brady
Peter Flass
Did you try it?
Bill Buckels
"Peter Flass" <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>Did you try it?
Yes. The downloads page is:
http://iron-spring.com/~/download.html
it should be
http://iron-spring.com/download.html
The links are pooched - botched - kaput and otherwise not working - poorly
done.
Peter Flass
Oh, you're using IE 8. I tested this with several other browsers and
they worked fine.
Bill Buckels
"Bill Buckels" <bbuc...@mts.net> wrote:
>The links are pooched - botched - kaput and otherwise not working - poorly
>done.
The links in the vertical menu are not working. The links at the bottom of
the page are. But the only compiler listed is an OS2 compiler. OS2 is as far
as I am concerned as current as the Apple II.
There is nothing wrong with retro computing and I have a a working Apple //e
and a working Apple II GS right here with my Commodore 64 and CP/M 80
Microsoft Softcard and Z80 Applicard and CP/M cartridge for my C64.
I was under the impression that we were talking about some current
implementation of PL/I though.
It is interesting that everything PL/I is old or broken or both.
Bill
Bill Buckels
"Peter Flass" <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>Oh, you're using IE 8. I tested this with several other browsers and they
>worked fine.
The java script is invalid. Despite the fact that it is broken, the tilde
does work with Firefox but unfortunately Firefox and all the other non-IE
browsers are in the minority and have been for over a decade. This all goes
back to when IE became the standard and has been ever since. Why would
anyone worry about anything else... stick to the standard! IE is the
standard. Unless one is living in the past with old and broken stuff...
e.g. The following is BROKEN! A period instead of a tilde would be valid for
a relative link:
<tr>
<a class="menu" href="~/download.html" title=Download">
<td class="menu" id='Down'
onmouseover="over('Down')"
onmouseout="out('Down')"
onclick="link('Down','download')" >
Download</a>
</td></tr>
Peter Flass
> "Peter Flass" <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh, you're using IE 8. I tested this with several other browsers and they
>> worked fine.
>
> The java script is invalid. Despite the fact that it is broken, the tilde
> does work with Firefox but unfortunately Firefox and all the other non-IE
> browsers are in the minority and have been for over a decade. This all goes
> back to when IE became the standard
IE has NEVER been a standard. IE 8 is suppposed to be closer, but of
cource it's not officially released yet. I test with Firefox, but also
with Safari, Opera, Chrome, and IE6, and they all work.
Bill Buckels
>IE has NEVER been a standard.
On August 23rd, 1995, Microsoft released their Windows 95 operating system,
including a Web browser called Internet Explorer. By the fall of 1996,
Explorer had a third of market share, and passed Netscape to became the
leading web browser in 1999.
That my Dear Fellow is what we in the world at large call a STANDARD.
>IE 8 is suppposed to be closer, but of cource it's not officially released
>yet.
Closer to what I wonder? Microsoft already has pushed out, via Auto Update,
the final version of Internet Explorer 8 to customers who had installed the
beta version of its latest browser. Starting on or about the third week of
April, users still running IE6 or IE7 on Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows
Server 2003, or Windows Server 2008 will get a notification through
Automatic Update about IE8. This rollout will start with a narrow audience
and expand over time to the entire user base. On Windows XP and Server 2003,
the update will be High-Priority. On Windows Vista and Server 2008 it will
be Important.
>I test with Firefox, but also with Safari, Opera, Chrome, and IE6, and they
>all work.
I test with IE (currently IE 7) and develop with ASP.NET. If anyone uses
another browser then they can hope for the best but I don't worry much about
them.
Bill
Peter Flass
> "Peter Flass" <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> IE has NEVER been a standard.
>
> On August 23rd, 1995, Microsoft released their Windows 95 operating system,
> including a Web browser called Internet Explorer. By the fall of 1996,
> Explorer had a third of market share, and passed Netscape to became the
> leading web browser in 1999.
>
> That my Dear Fellow is what we in the world at large call a STANDARD.
My dear fellow, what we in the world consider the STANDARD for browsers
is developed by the W3C, and the reason IE is steadily losing market
share is that it hasn't conformed. The newer versions are trying to
slow the decline.
I'm done. If you can't tell the difference between a publish, accepted
industry standard and something that just happens to sell some copies
because it's bundled with the hardware, there's no arguing with you.
Bill Buckels
"Peter Flass" <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'm done. If you can't tell the difference between a publish, accepted
>industry standard and something that just happens to sell some copies
>because it's bundled with the hardware, there's no arguing with you.
Tim Berens-Lee and that W3C gang might agree with you so there would be no
arguing with then either... Depends on what you perceive as the industry.
The reason Microsoft won the browser wars was because they provided a better
product and they provided it for free. They had a huge team. Netscape could
not compete. IE didn't just sell some copies... it was a total and huge
success.
It's like industry standard development tools... Microsoft have a conforming
easy to use low cost development environment... IBM's isn't so low cost.
Bill
robin
>
> I was under the impression that we were talking about some current
> implementation of PL/I though.
>
> It is interesting that everything PL/I is old or broken or both.
Try IBM's PL/I for Windows.
William M. Klein
suggested retail price (in ht US) is $5,500. See:
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rdz/
To view detailed pricing options and buy, see
https://www-112.ibm.com/software/howtobuy/buyingtools/paexpress/Express?P0=E1&part_number=D053NLL,D054WLL,D057XLL,D0587LL,D055QLL,D0570LL,D0572LL,D0576LL&catalogLocale=en_US&locale=en_US&country=USA&PT=html--Bill Klein wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
Bill Buckels
"William M. Klein" <wmk...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Available for purchase (if you want the current, non-demo one) as part of
>RDZ suggested retail price (in ht US) is $5,500.
Someone in here said that "you get what you pay for" when it comes to buying
Microsoft Languages. Yes, that appears to be true. I can send 25 programmers
to Tech Days and they will return with huge training bundles of over a dozen
DVD's, tech net subscriptions, and other great goodies after a whole day of
courses and a fully licenced version of Visual Studio including ALL the
languages (and, I might add, the backward versioning licencing as well which
is standard with Microsoft), or I can buy 1 copy of PL/I.
Gawrsh Mickey, ahuk-ahuk-ahuk, I wonder what I should do:) I'd better ask
Pluto.
Perhaps I need to realize that there is a difference between programs that
are written in languages that essentially come with the operating system and
those that are bought with operating systems for some other computer... but
the other 24 guys that attended Tech Days and got all sorts of great
software development tools need to realize this too... and we are all too
busy billing our clients to understand the difference I guess.
Comments from IBM about PL/I pricing justification would be priceless:)
Bill
robin
> "Peter Flass" <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >IE has NEVER been a standard.
>
> On August 23rd, 1995, Microsoft released their Windows 95 operating system,
> including a Web browser called Internet Explorer. By the fall of 1996,
> Explorer had a third of market share,
Only by predatory practices, namely, that they made IE the
default browser, and made it difficult for Netscape
to plug in.
That also applied to Pegasus Mail, which out-performed
MS Outlet Express on earlier OS, but did not work on 95 owing to
lack of documentation about 95.
> and passed Netscape to became the
> leading web browser in 1999.
>
> That my Dear Fellow is what we in the world at large call a STANDARD.
It may be a "standard", but if it doesn't work,
it isn't anything.
robin
>
> "Peter Flass" <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm done. If you can't tell the difference between a publish, accepted
> >industry standard and something that just happens to sell some copies
> >because it's bundled with the hardware, there's no arguing with you.
>
> Tim Berens-Lee and that W3C gang might agree with you so there would be no
> arguing with then either... Depends on what you perceive as the industry.
>
> The reason Microsoft won the browser wars was because they provided a better
> product and they provided it for free.
It was free, but it wasn't a better product.
See previous post.
> They had a huge team. Netscape could
> not compete. IE didn't just sell some copies... it was a total and huge
> success.
It's only a success if it works.
And has the same or better facilities. It didn't.
robin
news:FAnIl.247012$rp7....@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
> "robin" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:VQlIl.6073$y61....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> Available for purchase (if you want the current, non-demo one) as part of RDZ
> suggested retail price (in ht US) is $5,500. See:
> http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rdz/
This is what you posted recently:
From: "William M. Klein" <wmk...@nospam.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.pl1
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 12:19 AM
Subject: Getting RDz
| In the IBM-MAIN group, there was just a post about buying RDz from "resellers" -
| which was something that I had never heard of. It said to look for the part
| number of D61EULL.
| I did a quick google search and the first site listed was
| http://www.lasercs.net/d61eull-ae.html
|
| which seems to be selling the entire RDz product for
| 2,268.00
Bill Buckels
"robin" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> which seems to be selling the entire RDz product for 2,268.00
That doesn't seem bad for what it is, but it is still too high-end for a
hobbyist and a ways away from what most Windows programmers are accustomed
to paying.
Bill
William M. Klein
You state,
"This is what you posted recently"
I don't consider June of 2008 to be "recently" - but when I clicked on the link,
it is still VALID. However, when I do a search within that site for "D61EULL"
I don't get any hits. Looking at the site in general, I don't know whether I
would want to use it as a software vendor - but I haven't tried to get this
product from them, so I don't know. I do know that the site says that what is
being sold there is "support" - not software. (This includes upgrades and
maintenance - but I don't know if it would actually include "new" software for
RDz).
Especially given the date of my post, you may be interested in looking at:
http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=AN&subtype=CA&htmlfid=897/ENUS908-251&app...
which lists "D61EULL" under the topic,
"Effective 10/24/08, IBM will withdraw from marketing the following products
licensed under the IBM International Program License Agreement. A replacement
product and availability date is listed if one is available."
The replacement product is listed as "D057XLL"
When I do a google serach on that number plus "reseller" - I don't get any hits
of actual resellers for it.
Do you, Robin, have any current website references where a current version
(7.5.1 - See IBM announcement 208-375
dated October 7, 2008)
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"robin" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:K2_Il.6586$y61....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
William M. Klein
"selling the entire RDz product for 2,268.00"
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Bill Buckels" <bbuc...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:cF%Il.51989$FR3....@newsfe04.iad...
Bill Buckels
"William M. Klein" <wmk...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>When I do a google serach on that number plus "reseller" - I don't get any
>hits of actual resellers for it.
I am not too familiar with mainframes. Is it possible that you may need to
use a special search engine to actually search on this product or maybe a
different browser or Internet?
Bill
William M. Klein
if he knows of any reseller website that actually DOES resell a current version
of the product today.
OTOH, the point of "resellers" is that they are separate from (not a part of)
IBM, so I would expect that such sites would be "findable" via normal searches
and normal browsers.
OBVIOUSLY, if anyone other than Robin can find information about existing
resellers of the current version of RDZ, I would be interested in where
additional current information can be found.
Tim C.
<news:8StIl.6208$y61....@news-server.bigpond.net.au> :
> It's only a success if it works.
It's a success if lots of people use it.
--
Tim C.
Tim C.
<news:Ln3Jl.207488$UR4....@en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com> :
> (who referenced MY *old* note)
Be fair, it's only recently old. :-)
--
Tim C.
Bill Buckels
"Tim C." <spam...@tele2.at> wrote:
>Be fair, it's only recently old. :-)
To be fair, you tell better jokes than I do...
The unfunny reality with all this back and forth about PL/I is similar to
what recently occurred to me in one of our local for sale news groups:
"Bill Buckels" <bbuc...@mts.net> wrote:
>If anyone has a (Commodore 128) C128 computer that they believe still works
>and they want to find a good home for it, I am interested. Since I don't
>want to waste your time let me give you an idea what a C128 is worth these
>days:
>- Monitors start around 10-20 bucks.
>- Disk drives start around 10-20 bucks
>- The computer itself starts around 10-20 bucks
"Clueless Newbie" <clueles...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>It's worth whatever the **seller** is willing to sell it for.
> However with an attitude like yours I can guarantee you that I'd rather
> keep mine collecting dust than sell it to you for anything less than
> $1,000. The B128 version I might part with for $1,500, both just the
> computer itself, complete with power supply and nothing else, not even
> cables.
"Bill Buckels" <bbuc...@mts.net> wrote:
>There is absolutely nothing wrong with my attitude nor my pricing. I can
>see that you love your C128's very much:)
>However a C128 like any commodity is worth what the **buyer** is willing to
>pay. I wouldn't be bothering to look for one of these unless I had some
>clue what I was doing and what they were selling for ** in the world **
>these days.
"Clueless Newbie" <clueles...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>It's possible you may be able to get one for the price you're willing to
>pay for it, and I wish you luck.
"Bill Buckels" <bbuc...@mts.net> wrote:
>Thanks. There are several on ebay right now. I just bought one with cables
>for 26.99 USD. Sure it'll cost another 50 bucks or so to ship and clear
>customs, but hey, I won't need to drive to Winnipeg to get it and listen
>to whining from other old geezers who live in the past and think that old
>computers are worth something.
>Tom Syrota (Syrotech) palletizes computers for shredding that are less than
>a decade old. Why you would you think some computer made in the '80's that
>barely sold would be a highly covetted collectible is beyond me. It's just
>a techie toy. Gotta run, Bill Buckels
We are not worthy:)
However a compiler is worth under a hundred dollars these days and has been
for many days:) Successful compilers are practically given away free and the
fact is that bundling a compiler with the Rational Unified Process may make
Rumbaugh, Booch, and Jacobsen happy (Ivar was fun at the Rational Symposium
back in 2001 and we all enjoy UML and Use Cases but that's not the point nor
is it any way to successfully market some old language in a new compiler:)
PL/I is like Latin and Cobol and MS-DOS. Latin is arguably better than
English and was very successful in its time.
"Harry Potter" <maspet...@aol.com> wrote:
>I'm glad you got the code running.
"Bill Buckels" <bbuc...@mts.net> wrote:
>Me too. I was curious about VB for MS-DOS which is why I downloaded your
>program in the first place. In the late 80's when I was programmming in
>QuickBasic 4.5 as well as MASM 5.1 and MSC 5.1 I would create
>mixed-language programs in all 3 languages together for fun. However I used
>MSC and MASM at work to build real programs for sale.
>When Windows 3.1 came along I made the jump to both MSC/C++ 7 and Borland
>C++ 3.1 and it wasn't until 1998 that I bothered with VB at all. Recent
>years have seen me using VB.NET but I remained curious about VB so when I
>saw that you had written in this old thing I gave it a try.
>I will create a complete command line build environment for this to go
>along with the hundred or so other compilers that I keep on this machine
>and this is essentially done.
"Harry Potter" <maspet...@aol.com> wrote:
>However, after 31 downloads, I only received one piece of feedback about
>how the program *works*.
"Bill Buckels" <bbuc...@mts.net> wrote:
>Let me say this. About 15 years or so ago I wrote a screensaver bundle for
>Windows 3.1 and had over 17,000 downloads from one of my pages alone. In
>fact my screensaver "template" from this bundle was used as the basis of
>distributed computing theory for an experiment called "Models at Home"
>which was written-up in Bio-Informatics. You can download a copy of a
>Windows XP port of one of these at http://www.clipshop.ca c/w with source
>code and other goodies.
>Anyway the point is that despite all those years of that and the countless
>other shareware and freeware code I have written I get virtually no
>feedback. I do it for fun and learning.
What's my point. There are several really and it's PPP that IBM can't make
PL/I affordable and accessible for folks like me when little ol' folks like
me make things and affordable and accesible for folks like me:)
Bill Buckels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bill_Buckels
http://www.clipshop.ca/
http://www.c64classics.ca/
http://www.appleoldies.ca/
http://www.cpm8680.com/
Under Construction:
http://www.teacherschoice.ca/
http://www.grindstoneharbour.ca/
Andrew Hamilton
wrote:
>
>"Peter Flass" <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm done. If you can't tell the difference between a publish, accepted
>>industry standard and something that just happens to sell some copies
>>because it's bundled with the hardware, there's no arguing with you.
Agreed. Standards promote interoperability and generally help speed
up the spread of products based on new or improved technologies. That
Microsoft chooses to ignore, or in reality, trash standards, is simply
a testimony to their overweening market power. They practically say
as much with their "embrace and extend" philosophy. "Embrace and
crush" is probably a more accurate description.
>
>Tim Berens-Lee and that W3C gang might agree with you so there would be no
>arguing with then either... Depends on what you perceive as the industry.
>
>The reason Microsoft won the browser wars was because they provided a better
>product and they provided it for free. They had a huge team. Netscape could
>not compete. IE didn't just sell some copies... it was a total and huge
>success.
Netscape as a company had many self-inflicted wounds, a consequence of
their mantra to "hire the children." Where were you during the US
Department of Justice anti-trust trial against MS? The one in which
they were found guilty but managed to quash the verdict through
political influence?
Andrew Hamilton
<rrllb...@worrlldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>I'm not 100% sure, but
>
>http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/downloads/r/rdz/
>
>looks to have a more recent demo of PL/I which runs on Windows. It's a
>tad on the large size at 1.3G. The web-page says it's rdz 7.5.
>
>Richard Brady
Richard,
Does this PL/I compiler produce code that runs under Windows? If it
does, can the code continue to function after the 60-day trial period
has expired?
1.3 GB is a lot to download, even with broadband ....
-AH
Bill Buckels
"Andrew Hamilton" <Ahamilt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Where were you during the US Department of Justice anti-trust trial against
>MS?
Certainly not in the US. The rest of the world should probably file an
anti-trust suit against the US Department of Justice.
>The one in which they were found guilty but managed to quash the verdict
>through political influence?
Sounds about right. Isn't that how things work down there?
Bill
Andrew Hamilton
wrote:
>
>"Andrew Hamilton" <Ahamilt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Where were you during the US Department of Justice anti-trust trial against
>>MS?
>
>Certainly not in the US. The rest of the world should probably file an
>anti-trust suit against the US Department of Justice.
No. The DOJ did its job. It was at the "political" levels that
justice wasn't served. Reason # 2851 why George W. Bush was probably
the worst president in the entire history of the United States.
>
>>The one in which they were found guilty but managed to quash the verdict
>>through political influence?
>
>Sounds about right. Isn't that how things work down there?
Like they don't work that way elsewhere. Gimme a break!
-AH
>
>Bill
>
Bill Buckels
"Andrew Hamilton" <Ahamilt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Sounds about right. Isn't that how things work down there?
>Like they don't work that way elsewhere. Gimme a break!
Sure, I was just pulling your leg anyway:) I still don't think M$oft is any
worse than IBM was in its day. As far as languages and tools go, I like them
all the same, and fail to see what makes IBM's PL/I (a single language)
effectively cost so much more than M$oft's Visual Studio. Maybe IBM is still
worse than M$
Bill
Andrew Hamilton
wrote:
>Sure, I was just pulling your leg anyway:) I still don't think M$oft is any
>worse than IBM was in its day. As far as languages and tools go, I like them
>all the same, and fail to see what makes IBM's PL/I (a single language)
>effectively cost so much more than M$oft's Visual Studio. Maybe IBM is still
>worse than M$
>
The difference is in the size of the markets. Microsoft is selling to
the "mass market" and has always priced its software somewhat
aggressively, compared with the competition.
IBM entertains no such philosophy. Last time I looked (several years
ago), I was amazed at IBM's prices for memory for the Z series,
compared to what "merchant memory" cost on the open market for PCs and
x86 servers.
And even if IBM were to re-introduce their "PL/I for Windows" product,
they probably wouldn't price it with reference to the "value" relative
to MS Studio. They would lose too much money, given the high fixed
costs of development, or in IBM's case, just the cost of adding that
one SKU to their price book, worldwide.
Just my two cents here.
-AH
Tim C.
<news:kf040557p953p38cq...@4ax.com> :
> The difference is in the size of the markets. Microsoft is selling to
> the "mass market" ...
>
> IBM entertains no such philosophy. Last time I looked (several years
Hardly surprising, given the price of the product.
IBM obviously think they have a profitable product in the latest bundle. I
presume the profit on new customers will more than cover that from those
lost.
--
Tim C.
robin
news:kf040557p953p38cq...@4ax.com...
> The difference is in the size of the markets. Microsoft is selling to
> the "mass market" and has always priced its software somewhat
> aggressively, compared with the competition.
>
> IBM entertains no such philosophy. Last time I looked (several years
> ago), I was amazed at IBM's prices for memory for the Z series,
> compared to what "merchant memory" cost on the open market for PCs and
> x86 servers.
>
> And even if IBM were to re-introduce their "PL/I for Windows" product,
They already offer PL/I for Windows.
IBM does not have to "re-introduce" it.
Andrew Hamilton
>
>They already offer PL/I for Windows.
>IBM does not have to "re-introduce" it.
>
Robin,
This is like saying that the DR PL/I for DOS (1.0) is a good
alternative for developing applications to run under Windows.
Apply a "sniff test," or just plain old "common sense." Any product
called "XYZ for Windows" would have to:
1. Run on Windows XP and Vista, that is, the compiler and associated
tools.
2. Produce programs that run on these platforms.
3. Be priced "appropriately." meaning priced according to "value." Now
"value" is sometimes hard to measure, but in most people's minds, it
means a product that is "about" the same price as products that are
"reasonable" substitutes.
So here are some products that are "reasonable" substitutes:
Intel: http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/buy-or-renew/
Microsoft (Visual Studio) :
http://store.microsoft.com/microsoft/Visual-Studio-2008-Standard-Edition-Full/product/283DE6A2
So, if I were the product manager for this "PL/I for Windows," I would
be looking to price it probably around the same as Visual Studio, or
perhaps a bit less to spur adoption. Or I might even design the
product as an "add-in" to Visual Studio so I would not need to provide
a whole suite of tools, etc., etc., and just leverage the tools you
get with Visual Studio.
Now, does IBM offer such a product? No, I didn't think so, if the
answer the questions I posed just above. And in "real life," I do
software product management, (not in this area), so I think I know
something about this issue..
Now, I'll dive back into the foxhole I just dug.
-AH
William M. Klein
Notice that the statement included
" "PL/I for Windows" product"
You have already admitted that it is NOT a product (in IBM terminology) - but
rather a COMPONENT of the RDz product.
Get your responses in sync, please.
If they were to offer a PL/I for Windows *PRODUCT* - then this would, in deed,
be a "re-introduction".
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"robin" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:3dCMl.9380$y61....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Bill Buckels
"robin" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>They already offer PL/I for Windows. IBM does not have to "re-introduce"
>it.
Two bytes meet. The first byte asks, "Are you ill?"
The second byte replies, "No, just feeling a bit off."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eight bytes walk into a bar. The bartender asks, "Can I get you anything?"
"Yeah," reply the bytes. "Make us a double."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Two strings walk into a bar and sit down. The bartender says, "So what'll it
be?"
The first string says, "I think I'll have a beer quag fulk boorg jdk^CjfdLk
jk3s d#f67howe%^U r89nvy~~owmc63^Dz x.xvcu"
"Please excuse my friend," the second string says, "He isn't
null-terminated."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
robin
news:ZvKMl.234568$Za7.1...@en-nntp-08.dc1.easynews.com...
> Notice that the statement included
> " "PL/I for Windows" product"
>
> You have already admitted that it is NOT a product (in IBM terminology)
I have not "admitted" anything of the sort.
> - but rather a COMPONENT of the RDz product.
>
> Get your responses in sync, please.
You seem to be the only person here who does not understand.
First you said IBM didn't offer a stand-alone PL/I. IBM does.
Now you say that it isn't a product. It is, and you can buy it.
Really, as you are a COBOL person, I fail to see why you
persist with your nonsense.
> If they were to offer a PL/I for Windows *PRODUCT* - then this would, in deed,
> be a "re-introduction".
IBM offers PL/I for windows, and it's a product that youcan buy.