Liant supports PL/I 
Author Message
 Liant supports PL/I

Quote:

> below is a re-post of my inquiry sent to
> www.liant.com/support/email
> several months back

> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> I am providing info to comp.lang.pl1 newsgroup readers about available
> PL/I compilers for Windows.

> 1. Does OPEN PL/I support Win32 API programming with libraries/etc ?
> 2. OPEN PL/I isnt listed as a current supported product, why is that?

But it is listed.  You can see it.  There's a whole page
of platforms that they support at this link.

Quote:
> 3. Does Liant have a active PL/I development team? If not what is your
> assessment of PL/I's future as a viable language.
> 4. What is the price?

> Any info provided will be shared with the newsgroup readers (as is
> this inquiry)..  Thanks

> Liant never responded to my email inquiry,

They respond to everyone else including me, at that time,
a couple of months back.

They provided me with an up-to-date list of platforms supported
by Liant Open PL/I, which I posted here.

You read it.

You know about it.



Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:49:18 GMT  
 Liant supports PL/I


Quote:

> > below is a re-post of my inquiry sent to
> > www.liant.com/support/email
> > several months back

> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> > I am providing info to comp.lang.pl1 newsgroup readers about
available
> > PL/I compilers for Windows.

> > 1. Does OPEN PL/I support Win32 API programming with libraries/etc
?
> > 2. OPEN PL/I isnt listed as a current supported product, why is
that?

> But it is listed.  You can see it.  There's a whole page
> of platforms that they support at this link.

> > 3. Does Liant have a active PL/I development team? If not what is
your
> > assessment of PL/I's future as a viable language.
> > 4. What is the price?

> > Any info provided will be shared with the newsgroup readers (as is
> > this inquiry)..  Thanks

> > Liant never responded to my email inquiry,

> They respond to everyone else including me, at that time,
> a couple of months back.

and you asked them WHAT?  whether they will accept $$$$$ for a product
they no longer support?

Quote:
> They provided me with an up-to-date list of platforms supported
> by Liant Open PL/I, which I posted here.

> You read it.

> You know about it.

Yes its listed FOR SALE,  surprise surprise..
But it isnt listed as a current SUPPORTED product as I've explained at
least twice before, go to:

www.liant.com/support

click on the "CURRENT PRODUCTS SUPPORTED" and read the pdf file



Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:40:41 GMT  
 Liant supports PL/I

Quote:




> > They respond to everyone else including me, at that time,
> > a couple of months back.

> and you asked them WHAT?  whether they will accept $$$$$ for a product
> they no longer support?

> > They provided me with an up-to-date list of platforms supported
> > by Liant Open PL/I, which I posted here.

> > You read it.

> > You know about it.
> Yes its listed FOR SALE,  surprise surprise..
> But it isnt listed as a current SUPPORTED product as I've explained at
> least twice before, go to:

Dear Richard,
   Liant stated clearly, unequivocally, and precisely
that they currently support PL/I on the platforms
indicated their web page.
This is current information.


Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:23:20 GMT  
 Liant supports PL/I


Quote:

> > You know about it.

> > Yes its listed FOR SALE,  surprise surprise..
> > But it isnt listed as a current SUPPORTED product as I've
explained at
> > least twice before, go to:

> Dear Richard,
>    Liant stated clearly, unequivocally, and precisely
> that they currently support PL/I on the platforms
> indicated their web page.
> This is current information.

Dear Sparrow,
I see you snipped my link proving that LIANT does not show pl/i on
their list of current supported products, what a COVERUP ARTIST!!

   www.liant.com/support

   click on "product support list" read the pdf file,  NO PL/I



Mon, 19 Dec 2005 00:40:29 GMT  
 Liant supports PL/I

Quote:




> > > You know about it.

> > > Yes its listed FOR SALE,  surprise surprise..
> > > But it isnt listed as a current SUPPORTED product as I've
> explained at
> > > least twice before, go to:

> > Dear Richard,
> >    Liant stated clearly, unequivocally, and precisely
> > that they currently support PL/I on the platforms
> > indicated their web page.
> > This is current information.
> I see you snipped my link proving that LIANT does not show pl/i on
> their list of current supported products, what a COVERUP ARTIST!!

>    www.liant.com/support
>    click on "product support list" read the pdf file,  NO PL/I

Try
     http://www.liant.com/products/pl1

as you have been advised before.
You'll soon find that they support PL/I.



Mon, 19 Dec 2005 08:35:05 GMT  
 Liant supports PL/I

Quote:





>> > > You know about it.

>> > > Yes its listed FOR SALE,  surprise surprise..
>> > > But it isnt listed as a current SUPPORTED product as I've
>> explained at
>> > > least twice before, go to:

>> > Dear Richard,
>> >    Liant stated clearly, unequivocally, and precisely
>> > that they currently support PL/I on the platforms
>> > indicated their web page.
>> > This is current information.

>> I see you snipped my link proving that LIANT does not show pl/i on
>> their list of current supported products, what a COVERUP ARTIST!!

>> www.liant.com/support
>> click on "product support list" read the pdf file,  NO PL/I

> Try
> http://www.liant.com/products/pl1

> as you have been advised before.
> You'll soon find that they support PL/I.

To give David his due (spit), that page says it's for sale sure enough, but
doesn't actually state anywhere that I can see that PL1 is actually
*supported*, which is David's point, I think. It's clearly absent from
their list of current products products in PDF format.  Now, that pdf
document is copyrighted 2003, so presumably relatively up to date. The PL1
page doesn't look like it's been updated for a couple of years, especially
as it only mentions Windows NT and 95 - nothing later.

I'm sure they *do* sell PL1, they might also support it, but this does lead
me to think that if I were in the market for a PL1 compiler I'd look
somewhere else first.

Tim.



Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:23:32 GMT  
 Liant supports PL/I

Quote:

> To give David his due (spit), that page says it's for sale sure
> enough, but doesn't actually state anywhere that I can see that PL1 is
> actually *supported*, which is David's point, I think. It's clearly
> absent from their list of current products products in PDF format.  
> Now, that pdf document is copyrighted 2003, so presumably relatively
> up to date. The PL1 page doesn't look like it's been updated for a
> couple of years, especially as it only mentions Windows NT and 95 -
> nothing later.

> I'm sure they *do* sell PL1, they might also support it, but this does
> lead me to think that if I were in the market for a PL1 compiler I'd
> look somewhere else first.

> Tim.

I almost hate to spend the time, but...

Liant used to be  Ryan McFarland Corporation, who developed "RM/COBOL".
 Liant's main business is the development of business application
development tools for various platforms for use in cross-platform
systems, and in allowing companies to migrate legacy enterprise systems
to client/server type environments. Since COBOL is the primary Businees
application language, many of Liants packages are designed around their
RM/COBOL system.  Liant had to create Open PLI because PL/I is
frequently used in conjunction with (or as a replacement for) COBOL in
business applications. As a niche vendor, Liant concentrates on the
creation of migration tools and packages that perform consistantly
across supported platforms.  The PDF document appears to me to be more
of  a cross reference list of product version numbers and the respective
platforms to insure cross-product compatability issues.   It is _NOT_ a
list of the _ONLY_ products that Liant supports, and it says so at the
top of the document.

"Liant's product allows the *_gradual transition of PL/1_*
<http://www.liant.com/products/pl1/> mainframe and minicomputer
applications from legacy systems to open, client/server environments."

1. http://www.liant.com/products/pl1/  
    "Open PL/I  - for rehosting PL/I Applications on Open Systems"
    "...allows PL/I mainframe users to rehost existing PL/I applications
to open systems environments.
     "...Open-PL/I is the only proven multi-platform UNIX and Windows
PL/I solution in the marketplace today.  

2. http://www.liant.com/products/
    "Liant provides proven technologies for retooling enterprise
applications and preserving the core business process rules and logic
that are inherent in existing systems. --- Open Pl/1   --- Legacy
Products..."

3. http://www.liant.com/download/pdf/currprod.pdf
.     First line:   "LIANT March 7, 2003"
.Second line:   "Current Products List"
.  Third Line:   "Many other products are not listed.  For information,
please contact...."
.Fourth Line:   "RM/COBOL..."

4. http://www.liant.com/products/legacy/
    "*Open-PL/I*  * _Fully supported_ on Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, and
Win95/98/NT.* Click..."

You can even license Liant's PL/I parser logic as Viasoft and Leverage
Technologists did when trying to create products designed to analyze
program design problems.

Most business programming is in COBOL, and so Liant stresses the various
products in their "COBOL set", because many I.T. managers beleive that
Cobol programmers can be acquired for "a dime a dozen" and are easily
replaced.  I know of many shops that are required by corporate policy to
create software systems _only_ in COBOL because they can then outsource
the support.
The funny part is that in a number of these companys, the test
regression software used to prove that the final product actually works
is written in PL/I because of its superior I/O, data format, and string
handling capabilities..

- - - - -

In my opinion, "If you do it right the first time, you do not have to
keep fixing it and sending out new releases."

I would rather use a mature product, then to constantly have to go back
and fix my existing programs because the compiler was "fixed" and my
program is now considered "broken". Talk to the thousands of programmers
who got to fix "broken programs" when IBM changed the complier rules on
the way to the "LE COBOL" compilier.  You can talk with the "users" who
said "it used to work", and with the IBM developers who said "The
documentation didn't say you could do that" and with the System
Programmers, like myself, who had to argue that "the documentation
didn't say that you couldn't do it either". Eventually, some past
behavors were put back into the compilers because of the economic
problems it was causing various businesses trying to use the "new and
better" compliers.

Has the use of PL/I gone down? Yes, and for very stupid reasons from
some very narrow minded I.T. managers: "It costs too much to acquire
PL/I programmers..."  But then again, these are the same individuals who
believe that "first to market" is far more important than "doing it
right the first time."

- - - - -

What is my preferred Language for prototyping? PL/I  
And my second? REXX.
....list many others here...
and my third to last?  C and C++
and my second to last? COBOL.
and my last?  fortran.

The meta-language that I use for designing system is actually a "subset,
sort of" of PL/I. In many cases, if you added the semicolons and cleaned
up the PUT and GET statements, you would have a perfectly functioning
PL/I program. In a few cases, that is exactly what was done - because
the shop allowed the use of the most appropiate language for the task at
hand - and the management realized that the project was more easily
written and maintained in PL/I then in any other language.

I use PLI because it is extremely readable, and the language syntax can
be translated (when necessary) to almost any other formal language,
including Fortran or Assembler, if you know what you are doing.  It is
also a very precise and rich function oriented langauge, and supports
the concept of data structures - which many other languages kinda gloss
over. COBOL is too verbose, and FORTRAN is frequently very difficult to
read, if you haven't used it "all your life". FORTRAN, however, is FAR
easier to read than is C or C++ - the current wizkids on the block.

Is PLI object oriented? According to the way many programmers are being
taught to write programs today, "No." But then I 've written many many
applications and functions in PL/I that were used as objects - and
everybody seemed to be able to complete their own projects a little
faster, using the stuff I wrote...

In my fourty+ year career, I have only found FORTRAN in use in a few
shops, and all of them were either geography survey based (maps, etc.),
or rocket launch stuff, or they were a scientific research site - and
many of the production programs were legacy ones that they had been
running on a different venders hardware in the past... But they also
used PL/I as both a tool and as a production language.

Many "scientific oriented" sites that I have visted, used PL/I because
it meet their needs in both the scientfic reseach and in the business
ends of their companies - and programmers become more "interchangable"..

enuf.

/s/ Bill Turner, wb4alm



Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:09:19 GMT  
 Liant supports PL/I
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:09:19 GMT, Bill Turner, WB4ALM

Quote:


>> To give David his due (spit), that page says it's for sale sure enough,
>> but doesn't actually state anywhere that I can see that PL1 is actually
>> *supported*, which is David's point, I think. It's clearly absent from
>> their list of current products products in PDF format.  Now, that pdf
>> document is copyrighted 2003, so presumably relatively up to date. The
>> PL1 page doesn't look like it's been updated for a couple of years,
>> especially as it only mentions Windows NT and 95 - nothing later.

>> I'm sure they *do* sell PL1, they might also support it, but this does
>> lead me to think that if I were in the market for a PL1 compiler I'd
>> look somewhere else first.

>> Tim.

> I almost hate to spend the time, but...

...snip...
3. http://www.liant.com/download/pdf/currprod.pdf
.     First line:   "LIANT March 7, 2003"
.Second line:   "Current Products List"
.  Third Line:   "Many other products are not listed.  For information,
please contact...."

I remember pointing this line out to David some time ago. I missed it this
time.

Quote:
> 4. http://www.liant.com/products/legacy/
> "*Open-PL/I*  * _Fully supported_ on Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, and
> Win95/98/NT.* Click..."

Yep that's the bit I was looking for.  Thanks.  I'm satisfied, although I
know someone who won't be ;-)
And probably the page that Mr. Frank was "looking" for and should be
pointed to rather than the one Robin keeps using.

Quote:
> In my opinion, "If you do it right the first time, you do not have to
> keep fixing it and sending out new releases."

Quite.

Quote:
> I would rather use a mature product, then to constantly have to go back
> and fix my existing programs because the compiler was "fixed" and my
> program is now considered "broken". .. snip...

I agree 100% with you.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> Talk to the thousands of programmers who got to fix "broken programs"
> when IBM changed the complier rules on the way to the "LE COBOL"
> compilier.  You can talk with the "users" who said "it used to work", and
> with the IBM developers who said "The documentation didn't say you could
> do that" and with the System Programmers, like myself, who had to argue
> that "the documentation didn't say that you couldn't do it either".
> Eventually, some past behavors were put back into the compilers because
> of the economic problems it was causing various businesses trying to use
> the "new and better" compliers.

> Has the use of PL/I gone down? Yes, and for very stupid reasons from some
> very narrow minded I.T. managers: "It costs too much to acquire PL/I
> programmers..."  But then again, these are the same individuals who
> believe that "first to market" is far more important than "doing it right
> the first time."

> - - - - -

> What is my preferred Language for prototyping? PL/I  And my second? REXX.
> ....list many others here...
> and my third to last?  C and C++
> and my second to last? COBOL.
> and my last?  FORTRAN.

> The meta-language that I use for designing system is actually a "subset,
> sort of" of PL/I. In many cases, if you added the semicolons and cleaned
> up the PUT and GET statements, you would have a perfectly functioning
> PL/I program. In a few cases, that is exactly what was done - because the
> shop allowed the use of the most appropiate language for the task at hand
> - and the management realized that the project was more easily written
> and maintained in PL/I then in any other language.

That's more or less what we used to do at ITT-IDEC way back when.

Tim.



Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:08:36 GMT  
 Liant supports PL/I


Quote:
>This is current information.

He isn't interested in information. You may as well twit-list him.

--
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

Any unsolicited bulk E-mail will be subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.

Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not reply



Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:12:03 GMT  
 Liant supports PL/I

Quote:

> I'm sure they *do* sell PL1, they might also support it,

You bet they do.  My information direct from Liant
is very recent (i.e., a few months back when I asked them).
Quote:
> Tim.



Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:13:02 GMT  
 Liant supports PL/I

Quote:

> I'm sure they *do* sell PL1, they might also support it, but this does lead
> me to think that if I were in the market for a PL1 compiler I'd look
> somewhere else first.

The only problem is that Liant is one of the few places that supports
PL/I on Unix.  If you want PL/I on Unix, essentially there's Kednos for
Tru64 on an Alpha AXP or Liant for other Unix platforms.  It reminds me
of the pilot and crew at the end of a flight thanking all the passengers
for choosing "Nocturnal Aviation" for their flight to "Frostbite Falls"
when that's the only airline that flies to that airport.

Quote:

> I almost hate to spend the time, but...

> Liant used to be  Ryan McFarland Corporation, who developed
> "RM/COBOL".

I believe you are mistaken.  Liant used to be Language Processors, Inc.
(LPI) which developed and marketed a "family" of compilers: BASIC, C,
COBOL, FORTRAN, Pascal, PL/I, and RPG.  RPG was eventually abandoned and
some additional languages were added (e.g., C++): see

      http://www.liant.com/products/legacy/

cited later in Bill's post.  I believe their original business plan was
to catch mainframe customers just at the point when they were trying to
migrate from mainframes to minis by presenting those customers with a
set of alternative language implementations that were compatible across
all of their target supported minis (freeing customers from dependence
on a single vendor).

At some point, LPI changed its name to Liant and acquired Ryan McFarland
(RM/COBOL was a significant competitive product for LPI-COBOL) as what I
believe was called a "business unit"; later it also acquired several
other firms.  If memory serves, after the RM acquisition, Liant created
a new "business unit" named "LPI" which had responsibility for their
LPI-* line of products.  The reason I put "business unit" in quotation
marks is that I have never understood exactly what that term meant
besides giving a different name to some subset part of a larger company
and possibly keeping separate accounting records for it.

Quote:
> Liant had to create Open PLI because PL/I is frequently used in
> conjunction with (or as a replacement for) COBOL in business
> applications. As a niche vendor, Liant concentrates on the creation of
> migration tools and packages that perform consistantly across
> supported platforms.

Here my knowledge is a little less concrete.  My best guess is that
Liant's Open-PL/I is the current renamed incarnation of LPI-PL/I.  In
fact, LPI-PL/I was developed concurrent with, and maybe a little in
advance of, LPI-COBOL and both LPI-PL/I and LPI-COBOL existed as real
products before the acquisition of Ryan McFarland; I don't know whether
Ryan McFarland implemented RM/COBOL before or after LPI implemented
LPI-PL/I -- they were independent and independently motivated.

Quote:
> The PDF document appears to me to be more of  a cross reference list
> of product version numbers and the respective platforms to insure
> cross-product compatability issues.   It is _NOT_ a list of the _ONLY_
> products that Liant supports, and it says so at the top of the
> document.

> "Liant's product allows the gradual transition of PL/1 mainframe and
> minicomputer applications from legacy systems to open, client/server
> environments."

> 1. http://www.liant.com/products/pl1/
>     "Open PL/I  - for rehosting PL/I Applications on Open Systems"
>     "...allows PL/I mainframe users to rehost existing PL/I
> applications to open systems environments.
>      "...Open-PL/I is the only proven multi-platform UNIX and Windows
> PL/I solution in the marketplace today.

One of the major intended advantages of LPI's (and subsequently Liant's)
product line was that any source program would run the same way and
produce the same results when compiled by one of LPI's compilers and run
on any of the platforms supported by that compiler.  This applied to any
of the LPI-* languages.

Quote:
> Most business programming is in COBOL, and so Liant stresses the
> various products in their "COBOL set", because many I.T. managers
> beleive that Cobol programmers can be acquired for "a dime a dozen"
> and are easily replaced.  I know of many shops that are required by
> corporate policy to create software systems _only_ in COBOL because
> they can then outsource the support.
> The funny part is that in a number of these companys, the test
> regression software used to prove that the final product actually
> works is written in PL/I because of its superior I/O, data format, and
> string handling capabilities..

. . .

Quote:
> Has the use of PL/I gone down? Yes, and for very stupid reasons from
> some very narrow minded I.T. managers: "It costs too much to acquire
> PL/I programmers..."  But then again, these are the same individuals
> who believe that "first to market" is far more important than "doing
> it right the first time."

I believe it's somewhat more complicated than that.  I spent much of the
1970s and early 1980s in academia or working for and with IBM's
competitors (in the early days, PL/I was identified almost exclusively
with IBM).

Academics hated PL/I with a rabid fervor for reasons I never quite
understood.  Some of them were so enamored of Niklaus Wirth that they
hated any language not invented by him; others hated it because they had
learned another block-structured language first and PL/I was different;
some of them hated IBM for reasons similar to their current feelings for
Bill Gates; and I suspect that some hated PL/I simply because it
actually worked and could be used to produce useful software products,
unlike their favorite politically-correct academic toy languages (e.g.,
Pascal -- no prejudice on my part there :-)).

Some of the developers and other employees of IBM's competitors hated
IBM with a similar rabid fervor.  I remember competitors complaining
that even though for some specific application they had a superior
product that the technical people at some customer really wanted, by the
time the requisition paperwork made it to the office of one of the
suits, the suit would ask "What do you mean you're not buying IBM?";
this led to frustrations and feelings, possibly justified, that IBM had
an unfair advantage.

While I can't be certain of other peoples' motivations, that anti-PL/I
and anti-IBM sentiment led to many people refusing to use it and several
people refusing to implement it.  On more than one occasion, I heard
people from CDC's Sunnyvale facility refer to IBM or its products with
palpable sneering disdain.  From the sloppy implementation, I've always
had the sneaking suspicion that CDC's half-uh-baked version of PL/I was
sabotaged, possibly subconsciously, by their compiler development team
in Sunnyvale (it's always possible to find something else "important" to
do instead of something one doesn't want to do -- guess what I should be
doing instead of reading and posting to newsgroups :-)?).

Also, by the nature of the language definition, PL/I implementations
were very large (especially in the context of the mainframes of that
time) and very difficult.  Some vendors probably thought it wasn't worth
the effort.

Quote:
> What is my preferred Language for prototyping? PL/I
> And my second? REXX.
> ....list many others here...
> and my third to last?  C and C++
> and my second to last? COBOL.
> and my last?  FORTRAN.

My list would be slightly different:
third to last: Pascal
second to last: COBOL
last: RPG

though Mr. Frank's continued rudeness and ill-temper could easily move
Fortran into competition for one of those slots :-).

Quote:
> I use PLI because it is extremely readable, and the language syntax
> can be translated (when necessary) to almost any other formal
> language, including Fortran or Assembler, if you know what you are
> doing.  It is also a very precise and rich function oriented langauge,
> and supports the concept of data structures - which many other
> languages kinda gloss over. COBOL is too verbose, and FORTRAN is
> frequently very difficult to read, if you haven't used it "all your
> life". FORTRAN, however, is FAR easier to read than is C or C++ - the
> current wizkids on the block.

I'd argue the relative readability of Fortran, C, and C++ if I were
interested in starting a flame war (which I've already risked with my
anti-Wirth and anti-Pascal comments :-)).  I've read and written a lot
of code in a lot of different languages and can testify that it's
possible to write unreadable code in any language.  Some languages make
this easier than others :-) and the conventions of programmers for some
languages can make programs written in those languages less readable
than they need to be.  The opposite is also true: CDC had a set of
conventions for assembly language that felt extremely restrictive at
first but which resulted in assembly language code that was very
readable to anyone familiar with the conventions; i.e., write code
according to those conventions for a month or so and suddenly all of the
other assembly language code conforming to those conventions became
readable.

I agree with Mr. Turner that the use of PL/I is becoming less common.
There is no single cause: some of it is prejudice, some lack of
availability of inexpensive compilers on inexpensive platforms, some is
historical.  Ultimately I believe C++, C#, or some Java-like language
will replace it.  Fortran is an unlikely candidate as a replacement for
PL/I -- although recent additions to the language have made it extremely
powerful, each subsequent capability has made it more difficult to write
readable code and the nomenclature is becoming increasingly baroque,
arcane, and peculiar to Fortran (e.g., type statement, variable/value
type, variable/value type kind, etc.) so that it requires learning
different names for concepts common to other languages even to discuss
it.  Fortran, like COBOL, will probably remain in use by shops with lots
of legacy code and in those disciplines that traditionally have used
Fortran (as business ...

read more »



Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:54:32 GMT  
 Liant supports PL/I

Quote:


>> I'm sure they *do* sell PL1, they might also support it,

> You bet they do.  My information direct from Liant
> is very recent (i.e., a few months back when I asked them).

I accept that they did and do, it's is just that the link you posted really
didn't say that, and I totally missed the small-but-relevant bit on the
other page. Now we have a link to show you-know-who, maybe, just mybe it'll
shut him up for more than a millisecond. (oh, look up there, it's a pig).
Quote:

>> Tim.



Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:23:21 GMT  
 Liant supports PL/I


Quote:

> > I'm sure they *do* sell PL1, they might also support it,

> You bet they do.  My information direct from Liant
> is very recent (i.e., a few months back when I asked them).

> > Tim.

Yet another example of:
Robin Vowels mis-posting a message reply and not replying to
inquiries why he does it.


Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:19:42 GMT  
 
 [ 39 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3]

 Relevant Pages 

1. Liant Open PL/I is available from Liant

2. Liant DOES support Open PL/I

3. Liant DOES support PL/I

4. Liant Open PL/I

5. Liant Open PL/I

6. Liant Open PL/I

7. Needed: PL/M-96 Support Tools

8. *** US-TX-HOU PL/1 CONTRACT TESTING AND APPLICATION SUPPORT

9. Relational Databridge by Liant

10. Inquiry to Liant

11. pli- IBM and Liant

12. error on LIANT RELATIVITY

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software