Usenet group for PL/M language 
Author Message
 Usenet group for PL/M language


Quote:
>>I program in PLM/51. I maintain old projects and beleive it
>>or not use it for new designs too. I use the about 10 year old
>>Intel compiler and linker and it works perfectly.

>>I would also welcome a usenet group on the subject.

>Again I would welcome a PL/M user group.

I have just been given PLM/51 compiler V1.4 which I believe was the
last one produced (in 1986)  Does any one know what the status of the
Intel PLM/51 compilers are?

Can they be treated as freeware?

Regards
        Chris
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\  Chris Hills          Staffs /\/\/\/\/\/
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\     England      /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



Sun, 23 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Usenet group for PL/M language

Quote:

> I have just been given PLM/51 compiler V1.4 which I believe was the
> last one produced (in 1986)  Does any one know what the status of the
> Intel PLM/51 compilers are?

Is PL/M somehow related to C or is the comp.lang.c in the
Newsgroups: line completely gratuitous?
--
"I ran it on my DeathStation 9000 and demons flew out of my nose." --Kaz


Sun, 23 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Usenet group for PL/M language

Quote:

>> I have just been given PLM/51 compiler V1.4 which I believe was the
>> last one produced (in 1986)  Does any one know what the status of the
>> Intel PLM/51 compilers are?

>Is PL/M somehow related to C or is the comp.lang.c in the
>Newsgroups: line completely gratuitous?

Not at all. As you know originally the 8051 was programmed in
assembler then most moved to PLM and from PLM to C.

There are many C programmers who still need to maintain PLM code
on 8051's There are many C programmers who have the PLM tools
that others are looking for.

Or is the C in comp.lang.c  not related to hardware?
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\  Chris Hills          Staffs /\/\/\/\/\/
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\     England      /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



Sun, 23 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Usenet group for PL/M language

Quote:


> > I have just been given PLM/51 compiler V1.4 which I believe was the
> > last one produced (in 1986)  Does any one know what the status of the
> > Intel PLM/51 compilers are?

> Is PL/M somehow related to C or is the comp.lang.c in the
> Newsgroups: line completely gratuitous?
> --
> "I ran it on my DeathStation 9000 and demons flew out of my nose." --Kaz

Actually, they are both related indirectly to the "big daddy" of
algorithmic languages; namely, Algol.  PL/M was based on PL/I which was
based on Algol.  A lot of people will claim that PL/I is a combination
of fortran and COBOL (these two names will always be acronyms to me).
However, PL/I has Algol's block-based structure which was lacking in
early FORTRAN, and is still to this day missing from COBOL.  C is based
on B which was based on BCPL which was a subset of CPL which was mostly
definitely Algol influenced.  In fact, most of the modern day languages
we use today (C/C++, Pascal/Object Pascal, Ada/Object Ada, Modula,
Oberon, Eiffel, Java et. al. ) have Algol's block-based structure.
Heck, even BASIC (yet another acronym) has adopted Algol's block
structure.  This is the main reason why it so easy to learn C after
learning Pascal and vice-versa as well as the reason why languages like
Smalltalk, Forth, and LISP look so strange.  

If you like any of the above block-based languages, thank Jim Backus.
He was one of the most influential language designers of all time.
Every time one looks at a set of language productions (aka a grammar in
BNF or EBNF), they see Backus work.  Jim Backus used BNF as a notation
for Algol's grammar. Niklaus Wirth extended BNF to the EBNF form we see
most often today.

Mark



Mon, 24 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Usenet group for PL/M language


Quote:
> Is PL/M somehow related to C or is the comp.lang.c in the
> Newsgroups: line completely gratuitous?

Well, PL/M and C provide about the same level of abstraction and are targeted
to the same type of application, so it's reasonable to assume that programmers
interested in PL/M might well be reading comp.lang.c.

That's my guess anyway, I didn't post the original message.

--

 `-_-'   Ar rug t barrg ar do mhactre inniu?
  'U`    "And now, little kittens, we're going to run across red-hot
          motherboards, with our bare feet." -- Buzh.



Mon, 24 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Usenet group for PL/M language

Quote:



<snip>
> Actually, they are both related indirectly to the "big daddy" of
> algorithmic languages; namely, Algol.  PL/M was based on PL/I which was
> based on Algol.  A lot of people will claim that PL/I is a combination
> of FORTRAN and COBOL (these two names will always be acronyms to me).

So is ALGOL (ALGOrithmic Language).

   Best wishes,
   --Phil Martel

Quote:
> However, PL/I has Algol's block-based structure which was lacking in
> early FORTRAN, and is still to this day missing from COBOL.  C is based
> on B which was based on BCPL which was a subset of CPL which was mostly
> definitely Algol influenced.  In fact, most of the modern day languages
> we use today (C/C++, Pascal/Object Pascal, Ada/Object Ada, Modula,
> Oberon, Eiffel, Java et. al. ) have Algol's block-based structure.
> Heck, even BASIC (yet another acronym) has adopted Algol's block
> structure.  This is the main reason why it so easy to learn C after
> learning Pascal and vice-versa as well as the reason why languages like
> Smalltalk, Forth, and LISP look so strange.

> If you like any of the above block-based languages, thank Jim Backus.
> He was one of the most influential language designers of all time.
> Every time one looks at a set of language productions (aka a grammar in
> BNF or EBNF), they see Backus work.  Jim Backus used BNF as a notation
> for Algol's grammar. Niklaus Wirth extended BNF to the EBNF form we see
> most often today.

> Mark



Tue, 25 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Usenet group for PL/M language
On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 00:58:13 -0500,

Quote:

...
>based on Algol.  A lot of people will claim that PL/I is a combination
>of FORTRAN and COBOL (these two names will always be acronyms to me).

And on what, pray tell, do you base that notion? FORTRAN and COBOL are
about as similar as, say, Java and C. Sure, they were both designed
have to be formatted on punched cards, but other than that, they have
absolutely nothing in common. COBOL is something like awk--, only
column rather then delimiter based. FORTRAN is, to this day, one of
the best languages to program heavy numerical applications in, since
it is much more optimizable than, say, C.

Moshe Zadka



Wed, 26 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Usenet group for PL/M language

Quote:

>I have just been given PLM/51 compiler V1.4 which I believe was the
>last one produced (in 1986)  Does any one know what the status of the
>Intel PLM/51 compilers are?

>Can they be treated as freeware?

Chris,

Probably not as freeware.  I have a copy on my shelf which has no dust on it
(since we just moved!).  I refer to it about once each year.  And, usually
wind up faxing a page or two to a customer who is porting code to C.

The documentation was not available last year from Intel, but I went through
the motions to get them to re-stock the manuals.  You may want to try
contacting Intel's literature center to see if they have copies available.

Jon Ward



Thu, 27 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Usenet group for PL/M language

Quote:

> On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 00:58:13 -0500,


> ...
> >based on Algol.  A lot of people will claim that PL/I is a combination
> >of FORTRAN and COBOL (these two names will always be acronyms to me).

> And on what, pray tell, do you base that notion?

PL/1 was originally developed under the auspices of IBM and the
SHARE FORTRAN project. To quote from "Highlights of a New
Programming Language" (Radin and Rogoway, CACM Jan 1965):
  "Long experience with FORTRAN had produced an accumulation of
   required extensions that had been debated and evaluated by
   SHARE. It was generally recognized, also, that some of ALGOL's
   notations and structures were worth incorporating into a
   modern programming language."

The use of BEGIN ... END and semicolons is borrowed from Algol;
the use of "=" rather than ":=" for assignment and the use of
CALL for procedure calls are Fortran-isms; the use of PICTURE
clauses in variable declarations is a Cobol-ism, e.g.
   DECLARE FOO PICTURE(ZZ.999);

So PL/1 combined features of Algol 60, Fortran and Cobol in an
attempt to produce the best of all possible worlds; but the
result still looks like a camel from certain angles... ;-)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 Senior Lecturer           | http://www.it.bton.ac.uk/staff/je
 Dept. of Computing        | ** NON-PROFIT CD FOR CS STUDENTS **
 University of Brighton    |    -- see http://burks.bton.ac.uk
-----------------------------------------------------------------



Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Usenet group for PL/M language

Quote:


> > Is PL/M somehow related to C or is the comp.lang.c in the
> > Newsgroups: line completely gratuitous?
> > --
> > "I ran it on my DeathStation 9000 and demons flew out of my nose." --Kaz

> Actually, they are both related indirectly to the "big daddy" of
> algorithmic languages; namely, Algol.  PL/M was based on PL/I which was
> based on Algol.  A lot of people will claim that PL/I is a combination
> of FORTRAN and COBOL (these two names will always be acronyms to me).

In fact, PL/I was derived from Algol, COBOL, and Fortran,
taking and improving on the best features of each of those
languages.

From Algol came block structures and dynamic arrays etc,
from COBOL came data structures, full error control,
record I/O and picture formatting, and from Fortran came formatted I/O
and scientific computation.  It also included, for the first time
in a general ourpose language, list processing facilities.

Quote:
> Mark



Mon, 01 Jul 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Usenet group for PL/M language

Quote:



> ...
> >based on Algol.  A lot of people will claim that PL/I is a combination
> >of FORTRAN and COBOL (these two names will always be acronyms to me).

> And on what, pray tell, do you base that notion? FORTRAN and COBOL are
> about as similar as, say, Java and C.

COBOL FORTRAN, and ALGOL were the origins of PL/I.
Yes, they were all dissimilar languages, and at first glance
COBOL and FORTRAN were completely dissimilar languages.
Yet, the best features of both were inclunded in PL/I,
because the designers wanted a language that could be
used in the commercial and scientific areas, and in mixtures,
with the one team of programmers, without
having two disparate programming groups required
for COBOL and for FORTRAN programming.
Quote:
> Moshe Zadka



Mon, 01 Jul 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Usenet group for PL/M language
Careful here.

There are two langauges entitled PL/M:

1. The one used internally by IBM to code system software for OS/390 and
predecessors, and which is derived from PL/I. The PLX macroprocessor from VA
PL/I is from that PL/M.

2. The PL/M used by Intel on their "blue boxes". This language bears very
little resemblance to PL/I, the greatest resemblance is the first three
characters in their names.

--
Regards, Mark Yudkin, Yudkin Consulting AG, Authors of Cogent/SQL for MVS,
OS/2 and Windows NT.
The simplest way to publish live data on the World Wide Web.


Quote:


> > > Is PL/M somehow related to C or is the comp.lang.c in the
> > > Newsgroups: line completely gratuitous?
> > > --
> > > "I ran it on my DeathStation 9000 and demons flew out of my
nose." --Kaz

> > Actually, they are both related indirectly to the "big daddy" of
> > algorithmic languages; namely, Algol.  PL/M was based on PL/I which was
> > based on Algol.  A lot of people will claim that PL/I is a combination
> > of FORTRAN and COBOL (these two names will always be acronyms to me).

> In fact, PL/I was derived from Algol, COBOL, and Fortran,
> taking and improving on the best features of each of those
> languages.

> From Algol came block structures and dynamic arrays etc,
> from COBOL came data structures, full error control,
> record I/O and picture formatting, and from Fortran came formatted I/O
> and scientific computation.  It also included, for the first time
> in a general ourpose language, list processing facilities.

> > Mark



Mon, 01 Jul 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Usenet group for PL/M language

good description of the tripart parentage of PL/1.
It deliberately inherits from three popular or famous
standard high level languages of the time: Algol 60,
FORTRAN and COBOL.   I believe that IBM did
not like the idea of standard (ie non-IBM) languages
and planned PL/I as a replacement for all of them.

I learned it while a programming with ICI in the 1960s.
It was called "NPL" at that time.  I prefered the homebrew
languages we used  then and there "K-code".

It was also suggested at the time (in SIGPLAN)
that PL/1 had
defaults designed to over-use the CPU/Storage
and so lead you to buy the bigger and faster IBM
computers.

Things are so much the same these days.... only
replace IBM by MS thruout...

rbotting at CSUSB edu
Computer Scientist, Sys Admin, Consultant, Researcher, and Reviewer
http://www.csci.csusb.edu/dick



Mon, 01 Jul 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 30 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3]

 Relevant Pages 

1. Derivation of PL/I (was Usenet group for PL/M language)

2. Derivation of PL/I (was Usenet group for PL/M language)

3. Usenet group for PL/M language

4. Usenet group for PL/M language

5. Usenet group for PL/M language

6. Usenet group for PL/M language

7. Number of posts to Usenet language groups

8. How to start a usenet news group ?

9. The BITNET and Usenet Forth Groups

10. VLSI usenet group

11. More usenet usage statistics, by programming language

12. ANN: PL/I for Palm Interest Group

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software