<IBM> Mainframe and "UI's" (GUI or not)
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Lack of graphics downfall of mainframe was Re: Java is becoming the new Cobol
Next: New draft of COBOL revision available
From: CG on 7 Jan 2008 00:45 On 01/06/08 06:08 pm, William M. Klein wrote: ><SNIP> On the other hand, the OS/390 people *DID* provide an RPG - which I don't know if anyone ever actually used. Bill, I can guarantee that "OS/VS RPG II" was and still is in use! [Yep, that's the actual product name.] And, this was only one of two different RPG compilers on S/390. The other was called "IBM SAA RPG/370". We have had at least two different large z/OS shops ask us to identify RPG in their inventory. We do, in fact and in reponse to those requests, report RPG components and their associated run-time components. We were provided some actual, supposedly production, load modules that contain RPG. One load module even had a combination of VS COBOL II and RPG, another with OS/VS COBOL and RPG. Some Assembler was also mixed in those modules. Carl
From: Pete Dashwood on 7 Jan 2008 07:54 "Judson McClendon" <judmc(a)sunvaley0.com> wrote in message news:w1agj.59513$rc2.31391(a)bignews1.bellsouth.net... > "tlmfru" <lacey(a)mts.net> wrote: >> >> William M. Klein <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote: >>> >>> that were portable across OS and available from all languages *and* a >>> common >>> run-time that let many languages, e.g. COBOL, C, and RPG (believe it or >>> not PL/I >>> was very late to this game) play well together. >> >> I was studying PL/1 in university in the mid-60's. Is PL/"one" different >> from PL/"eye"? > > > I studied PL/I at university in the 1970's. But, as far as I know, PL/I > has > always been spelled with Roman Numeral one ("I"). Then your knowledge is incomplete. :-) The language was going to be the new replacement for COBOL and was originally Program Language International (PL/I) Unfortunately, (at least from IBM's point of view) it did not enjoy the universal takeup they hoped for (despite being a very good language that was arguably more "programmer oriented" than COBOL). Rather than admit it was a failure, IBM said the Language was in its first incarnation and so was Program Language/One (PL/1). This is what it came it be known as, and is to this day. So the "Roman Numeral" originally was an I, but later got commuted (at least in spoken language) to a Roman 1. I remember seeing a manual with a green or red cover (IBM publication) (not sure now as it wasa VERY long time agao...) which actually had "PL/1" printed on it, but I have to admit, they are thin on the ground. > I Googled "PL/1" > to see if anybody out there spelled it that way, and found a page that > did. > But on the page itself, they reference the "IBM PL/I Family". If you > follow > the link, it is to an IBM website, where it is "PL/I". Since IBM invented > PL/I, they do have the right to name it, and they did: "PL/I". Their naming right is not in dispute; but they did change the name. The world has been awaiting PL/2 for around 4 decades... I think it is a pretty fair bet we won't be seeing it. :-) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Howard Brazee on 7 Jan 2008 10:33 On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 01:54:15 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >Their naming right is not in dispute; but they did change the name. > >The world has been awaiting PL/2 for around 4 decades... I think it is a >pretty fair bet we won't be seeing it. :-) I want to run it on OS/3.
From: CG on 7 Jan 2008 21:21 On 01/07/08 07:54 am, Pete Dashwood wrote: > "Judson McClendon" <judmc(a)sunvaley0.com> wrote in message > news:w1agj.59513$rc2.31391(a)bignews1.bellsouth.net... >> "tlmfru" <lacey(a)mts.net> wrote: >>> William M. Klein <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> that were portable across OS and available from all languages *and* a >>>> common >>>> run-time that let many languages, e.g. COBOL, C, and RPG (believe it or >>>> not PL/I >>>> was very late to this game) play well together. >>> I was studying PL/1 in university in the mid-60's. Is PL/"one" different >>> from PL/"eye"? >> >> I studied PL/I at university in the 1970's. But, as far as I know, PL/I >> has >> always been spelled with Roman Numeral one ("I"). > > Then your knowledge is incomplete. :-) > > The language was going to be the new replacement for COBOL and was > originally Program Language International (PL/I) > > Unfortunately, (at least from IBM's point of view) it did not enjoy the > universal takeup they hoped for (despite being a very good language that was > arguably more "programmer oriented" than COBOL). > > Rather than admit it was a failure, IBM said the Language was in its first > incarnation and so was Program Language/One (PL/1). This is what it came it > be known as, and is to this day. > > So the "Roman Numeral" originally was an I, but later got commuted (at least > in spoken language) to a Roman 1. > > I remember seeing a manual with a green or red cover (IBM publication) (not > sure now as it wasa VERY long time agao...) which actually had "PL/1" > printed on it, but I have to admit, they are thin on the ground. > > >> I Googled "PL/1" >> to see if anybody out there spelled it that way, and found a page that >> did. >> But on the page itself, they reference the "IBM PL/I Family". If you >> follow >> the link, it is to an IBM website, where it is "PL/I". Since IBM invented >> PL/I, they do have the right to name it, and they did: "PL/I". > > Their naming right is not in dispute; but they did change the name. True, but not as you state it! > The world has been awaiting PL/2 for around 4 decades... I think it is a > pretty fair bet we won't be seeing it. :-) \ Sorry, but it is you who have incomplete and inaccurate information... I was part of the announcement team for S/360 which included New Programming Language [a.k.a., NPL]. I saw compiled code listings that had NPL on the heading; a very early beta listing. Because of complaints from the British 'National Physical Laboratory' [See http://www.npl.co.uk/] over the use of their initials, the language was changed to "Programming Language/One [a.k.a., PL/I - It is and has ALWAYS been a Roman Numeral 'I' in every official use of the name.] I often use, as a measure of a person's real knowledge of the language, whether they actually know how to spell it. Sure, it is a fact that there are/have been a number of supposedly competent IBMers who have incorrectly used a numeric '1' instead of an 'I'. There have also been a number of similarly uninformed people who omit the '/' in the name. But, no matter the errors, the name, since it ceased to be NPL, is "PL/I" and no other variation is proper. FWIW, "Data Language/I" is a similarly named product. Yes, there is now a DB2, but there never has been, nor is it likely there will ever be a DL/2 or a DL/II or whatever. Similarly, no one [other than detractors who are rightly ignored by most PL/I professionals] has ever considered that there might ever be a PL/2. I will give you that PL/I was intended to be a replacement for COBOL. But, it was not just COBOL that was targeted. It was also supposed to replace FORTRAN and Algol and... all other high level languages. The fact that it did not had absolutely nothing to do with the language itself. It was due to the initial implementation and the rash of other 'decommitments' that flowed from the complete lack of reality in what was initially planned to be available and the projected time to accomplish the implementation of the items announced. Carl
From: Pete Dashwood on 7 Jan 2008 22:11
"CG" <Carl.Gehr.ButNoSPAMStuff5(a)MCGCG.Com> wrote in message news:88814$4782de13$d06620ed$22718(a)FUSE.NET... > On 01/07/08 07:54 am, Pete Dashwood wrote: >> "Judson McClendon" <judmc(a)sunvaley0.com> wrote in message >> news:w1agj.59513$rc2.31391(a)bignews1.bellsouth.net... >>> "tlmfru" <lacey(a)mts.net> wrote: >>>> William M. Klein <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>> that were portable across OS and available from all languages *and* a >>>>> common >>>>> run-time that let many languages, e.g. COBOL, C, and RPG (believe it >>>>> or not PL/I >>>>> was very late to this game) play well together. >>>> I was studying PL/1 in university in the mid-60's. Is PL/"one" >>>> different >>>> from PL/"eye"? >>> >>> I studied PL/I at university in the 1970's. But, as far as I know, PL/I >>> has >>> always been spelled with Roman Numeral one ("I"). >> >> Then your knowledge is incomplete. :-) >> >> The language was going to be the new replacement for COBOL and was >> originally Program Language International (PL/I) >> >> Unfortunately, (at least from IBM's point of view) it did not enjoy the >> universal takeup they hoped for (despite being a very good language that >> was arguably more "programmer oriented" than COBOL). >> >> Rather than admit it was a failure, IBM said the Language was in its >> first incarnation and so was Program Language/One (PL/1). This is what it >> came it be known as, and is to this day. >> >> So the "Roman Numeral" originally was an I, but later got commuted (at >> least in spoken language) to a Roman 1. >> >> I remember seeing a manual with a green or red cover (IBM publication) >> (not sure now as it wasa VERY long time agao...) which actually had >> "PL/1" printed on it, but I have to admit, they are thin on the ground. >> >> >>> I Googled "PL/1" >>> to see if anybody out there spelled it that way, and found a page that >>> did. >>> But on the page itself, they reference the "IBM PL/I Family". If you >>> follow >>> the link, it is to an IBM website, where it is "PL/I". Since IBM >>> invented >>> PL/I, they do have the right to name it, and they did: "PL/I". >> >> Their naming right is not in dispute; but they did change the name. > > True, but not as you state it! > >> The world has been awaiting PL/2 for around 4 decades... I think it is a >> pretty fair bet we won't be seeing it. :-) > \ > Sorry, but it is you who have incomplete and inaccurate information... As it is based on my own experience, I don't think so...:-) Besides, it was a senior IBMer at IBM NZ who told me the story, AFTER people started referring to it as "Pee Ell/ One". It was first presented to us (IBM users) as "Pee Ell/ Eye" and that was what everyone where I was working referred to it as, until about six months or so after its official release. In fact, I believe that most of the User Group used that name for it... I'm not making it up Carl (I actually don't care enough to do that :-)), but I also accept that your version is probably true. International distribution could be forgiven for calling it "Program Language/ International" even if the people who developed it didn't intend that... Some Marketing guy says:"Call it 'International' it sounds more impressive..." > > I was part of the announcement team for S/360 which included New > Programming Language [a.k.a., NPL]. I saw compiled code listings that had > NPL on the heading; a very early beta listing. Because of complaints from > the British 'National Physical Laboratory' [See http://www.npl.co.uk/] > over the use of their initials, the language was changed to "Programming > Language/One [a.k.a., PL/I - It is and has ALWAYS been a Roman Numeral 'I' > in every official use of the name.] Then I guess the keyword here is "official"... "Official" may vary with the "office" that is issuing it... > > I often use, as a measure of a person's real knowledge of the language, > whether they actually know how to spell it. Sure, it is a fact that there > are/have been a number of supposedly competent IBMers who have incorrectly > used a numeric '1' instead of an 'I'. There have also been a number of > similarly uninformed people who omit the '/' in the name. But, no matter > the errors, the name, since it ceased to be NPL, is "PL/I" and no other > variation is proper. I never disputed the correct written form...:-) > > FWIW, "Data Language/I" is a similarly named product. Yes, there is now a > DB2, but there never has been, nor is it likely there will ever be a DL/2 > or a DL/II or whatever. Similarly, no one [other than detractors who are > rightly ignored by most PL/I professionals] has ever considered that there > might ever be a PL/2. > > I will give you that PL/I was intended to be a replacement for COBOL. Thank you. It was presented to us as such. > But, it was not just COBOL that was targeted. It was also supposed to > replace FORTRAN and Algol and... all other high level languages. The fact > that it did not had absolutely nothing to do with the language itself. It > was due to the initial implementation and the rash of other > 'decommitments' that flowed from the complete lack of reality in what was > initially planned to be available and the projected time to accomplish the > implementation of the items announced. I managed a team once in a PL/I mainframe shop and got to know it better. I think it is a good language. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." |