Prev: <IBM> Mainframe and "UI's" (GUI or not)
Next: My "reaffirmation" note to J4
From: tim Josling on 8 Jan 2008 02:10
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:45:50 +0000, William M. Klein wrote:


> The (almost funny) most interesting thing that the next revision will
> have is a "return" of OPTIONAL features...
>
> Originally, it was going to include the 3 TR (Technical Reports) that
> have "passed" - but now it looks as if it won't these are;were:
>
> - (OO) Finalizer (I think this is now dead)
> - Native XML (similar to MF's current implementation, not IBM's -
> future up for
> grabs)
> - OO collection classes (too much, too late, I don't think this will go
> anywhere now)
>
>
Thanks Bill.

Interesting what is not there that other languages are furiously adding:

- Introspection (querying and changing programs on the fly)

- Support for threading - especially given the Moore's law crisis with
CPUs now getting much faster any more. I am writing this on a 4-way box
that cost less than $1200 USD.

- Closures, anonymous functions.

- Support for dynamic languages.

- Associative arrays / hash tables.

---

Looking at the 2002 tome I thought the next step would be to rename the
language PL/II. Like PL/I it seemed to incorporate every feature known to
man at the time (except macros of course). Nowadays one would say every
feature known to man and woman I suppose.

[I remember macros fondly from my assembler days. IBM's assembler includes
a "Turing complete" macro facility, meaning in theory you can do any
computing task with it. Apparently macros fell out of fashion due to
over-use. But I notice that Haskell has added a macro facility, and they
are now part of Scheme as well. And Lisp, which has had macros for several
decades, is no deader than ever.

Macros, for those who have not had the pleasure, are the ability to write
abbreviations for code. Think COPY/REPLACE on steroids. Used right they
are a great way to reduce duplicate coding, to reduce errors, and to
enforce standards. "Thou shalt start each assembler program with QENTER"
etc.]

Tim Josling
From: Clark F Morris on 8 Jan 2008 09:21
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:45:50 GMT, "William M. Klein"
<wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote:

>
>"tim Josling" <tejgcc_nospam(a)westnet.com.au> wrote in message
>news:13o5ka6kskuhqf4(a)corp.supernews.com...
>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 20:18:10 +0000, William M. Klein wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>
>> Any idea what they are planning to add? Or is that all up for grabs?
>>
>> Tim Josling
>
>The (almost funny) most interesting thing that the next revision will have is a
>"return" of OPTIONAL features. This means, that for example, VALIDATE and
>REPORT WRITER will be OPTIONAL in the 20xx COBOL standard.
>
>Some of the major "enhancements" are:
> - IEEE 754r defined floating point (decimal and binary) (includes some new
>ROUNDED options)
> - ANY LENGTH elementary items (optional)
> - dynamic tables (optional)
> - intrinsic functions for formatting and de-formatting date/time
> - structured constants

I suspect that as soon as the IEEE 754r has a hope of being standard,
IBM will actually implement it (now if they could only get it through
their corporate heads that they need USAGE BIT because COBOL has to
deal with BIT data). I suspect the others may be needed for
interoperation with JAVA or C/C++ and again may be long overdue.
>
>Originally, it was going to include the 3 TR (Technical Reports) that have
>"passed" - but now it looks as if it won't these are;were:
>
> - (OO) Finalizer (I think this is now dead)
> - Native XML (similar to MF's current implementation, not IBM's - future up for
>grabs)
> - OO collection classes (too much, too late, I don't think this will go
>anywhere now)
From: LX-i on 8 Jan 2008 21:37
tim Josling wrote:
> Looking at the 2002 tome I thought the next step would be to rename the
> language PL/II. Like PL/I it seemed to incorporate every feature known to
> man at the time (except macros of course). Nowadays one would say every
> feature known to man and woman I suppose.

Nope - mankind (commonly known as "man") still has its original
definition. Some women don't like that, but that doesn't make them any
less a part of it.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
From: Judson McClendon on 9 Jan 2008 09:54
"LX-i" <lxi0007(a)netscape.net> wrote:
> tim Josling wrote:
>> Looking at the 2002 tome I thought the next step would be to rename the
>> language PL/II. Like PL/I it seemed to incorporate every feature known to
>> man at the time (except macros of course). Nowadays one would say every
>> feature known to man and woman I suppose.
>
> Nope - mankind (commonly known as "man") still has its original definition. Some women don't like that, but that doesn't make
> them any less a part of it.

Be careful, or the PC police will soon be at your door. ;-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc(a)sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."


From: LX-i on 9 Jan 2008 13:17
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007(a)netscape.net> wrote:
>> tim Josling wrote:
>>> Looking at the 2002 tome I thought the next step would be to rename the
>>> language PL/II. Like PL/I it seemed to incorporate every feature known to
>>> man at the time (except macros of course). Nowadays one would say every
>>> feature known to man and woman I suppose.
>> Nope - mankind (commonly known as "man") still has its original definition. Some women don't like that, but that doesn't make
>> them any less a part of it.
>
> Be careful, or the PC police will soon be at your door. ;-)

Let 'em come - I ain't skeered... ;)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: <IBM> Mainframe and "UI's" (GUI or not)
Next: My "reaffirmation" note to J4