PLI 2000 
Author Message
 PLI 2000

Hi

I just wanted to update anyone that may be interested.

I have now formally started to recode the storage allocator module of my 32 bit PLI compiler for NT.

I am now generating valid (though at this stage limited) COFF object files.

There is still several weeks work required to get the new allocator up to scratch.

Once this is done I will begin recoding the code generator, Im hoping that I can more or less extend the 16 bit version
that I have, but I havent looked into this yet.

With some luck I will have a version of the compiler than can do at least what the DOS one did but for 32 bit NT before
xmas.

When this is acheived I will setup a website from which the alpha and/or beta releases may be downloaded.

From time to time I will report significant milestones to this newsgroup.

A port to Linux may be quite feasible next year.

For the record the language is expected to conform to the 1987 ANSI standard.


Rgds

Hugh

PS: I named the thing PLI 2000, no reason really, just needed a new folder name to PLI-32.



Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:23:37 GMT  
 PLI 2000


Quote:
>For the record the language is expected to conform to the 1987 ANSI
>standard.

Which doesn't include everything in the full language.

--
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
     Atid/2, Team OS/2, Team PL/I

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

I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not



Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:26:12 GMT  
 PLI 2000


Quote:

> PS: I named the thing PLI 2000, no reason really, just needed a new folder
name to PLI-32.

PLI 2000 is GROSSLY over-stating your compiler project's capabilities when
your goal is MUCH less than current capabilities of Personal PL/I for
Windows($113),  its still mystifying to me why you think anyone shud be
interested in what you MIGHT produce, and you have never replied to my
pointing out you need a LARGE win32 library, where is that beast (and a
linker) coming from?

Sooo, when might you have a compiler/linker/libary to process a "HELLO
WORLD" 32-bit win32 program that will run on Windows XP that I can try?



Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:29:21 GMT  
 PLI 2000
Hi David

Well it shouldnt be mystifying that I expect some interest, for one its interesting and two I received several
encouraging postings to my original e-mail. If I had received zero I may well have had no enthusiasm.

You will need to be more specific regarding your view that I am "over-stating" anything, let me know exactly what I
wrote that you take issue with.

Finally I have already responded to your question about the Win32 library and the "hello world" too, I am e-mailing you
a copy of that response.

However if you visit dejanews you will see the posting, its been there for over a week and was a response to your
questions, have you not looked at dejanews ?

Regarding "when: the very posting to which you have responded hinted at xmas time as a possibility.

Thanks for the interest

Hugh

Quote:



>> PS: I named the thing PLI 2000, no reason really, just needed a new folder
>name to PLI-32.

>PLI 2000 is GROSSLY over-stating your compiler project's capabilities when
>your goal is MUCH less than current capabilities of Personal PL/I for
>Windows($113),  its still mystifying to me why you think anyone shud be
>interested in what you MIGHT produce, and you have never replied to my
>pointing out you need a LARGE win32 library, where is that beast (and a
>linker) coming from?

>Sooo, when might you have a compiler/linker/libary to process a "HELLO
>WORLD" 32-bit win32 program that will run on Windows XP that I can try?



Sat, 12 Mar 2005 20:18:24 GMT  
 PLI 2000
Hi Shmuel

I understand your point.

However the project had to have a goal originally and the 87 standard was considered pretty ambitious at the time.

There are numerous implementations and some dispute over what defines the "full" version.

IBM's implementation was embodied eventually in the 1976 standard.

I see no reason why specific additional features cant be added once I reach the stage where I have high functionality
and high stability.

Rgds
Hugh


Quote:


>>For the record the language is expected to conform to the 1987 ANSI
>>standard.

>Which doesn't include everything in the full language.



Sat, 12 Mar 2005 20:22:20 GMT  
 PLI 2000


Quote:
>There are numerous implementations and some dispute over what
>defines the "full" version.

Well, the 1987 standard is an upgrade of the Subset G standard, and
doesn't include everything in the 1976 standard.

Quote:
>IBM's implementation was embodied eventually in the 1976 standard.

Not really. There are significant differences. Or at least there were
in 1976; I'd have to check whether IBM has added the new language
elements.

Quote:
>I see no reason why specific additional features cant be added once
>I reach the stage where I have high functionality and high
>stability.

I would have a good deal of interest in a Linux or OS/2 version that
was compatible with IBM's current language level.

--
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
     Atid/2, Team OS/2, Team PL/I

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

I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not



Sun, 13 Mar 2005 02:00:43 GMT  
 PLI 2000

Quote:

> Hi

> I just wanted to update anyone that may be interested.

> I have now formally started to recode the storage allocator module of my
> 32 bit PLI compiler for NT.

> I am now generating valid (though at this stage limited) COFF object
> files.

> There is still several weeks work required to get the new allocator up to
> scratch.

> Once this is done I will begin recoding the code generator, Im hoping that
> I can more or less extend the 16 bit version that I have, but I havent
> looked into this yet.

> With some luck I will have a version of the compiler than can do at least
> what the DOS one did but for 32 bit NT before xmas.

> When this is acheived I will setup a website from which the alpha and/or
> beta releases may be downloaded.

> From time to time I will report significant milestones to this newsgroup.

> A port to Linux may be quite feasible next year.

> For the record the language is expected to conform to the 1987 ANSI
> standard.

> Feel free to ask questions or general enquiries/suggestions to:

> Rgds

> Hugh

> PS: I named the thing PLI 2000, no reason really, just needed a new folder
> name to PLI-32.

Hi Hugh,

I am very pleased to hear of your plans to port to Linux.  When you get to
this stage I would be willing to test and provide as much useful feedback
as I can.  I have done extensive PL/I programming on OpenVMS systems and
would love to see the Linux port as I spend a lot of time toying with Linux
systems today.  Good luck in you endever!

Regards,
Keith



Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:40:31 GMT  
 PLI 2000


Quote:
> Hi David

> Well it shouldnt be mystifying that I expect some interest, for one its

interesting and two I received several
Quote:
> encouraging postings to my original e-mail. If I had received zero I may

well have had no enthusiasm.

and just a few encouraging postings is sufficient for you to spend 1
man-year on this project?
Also you continue to ignore the fact that a windows compiler already exists
for $113 and you will deliver MUCH less than what a user gets from IBM..  I
can only conclude that the encouraging postings are assuming you are going
to give away your compiler and thus save them the $113,  ARE YOU?

Quote:
> You will need to be more specific regarding your view that I am

"over-stating" anything, let me know exactly what I

Quote:
> wrote that you take issue with.

Using 2000 after any language's name implies that the language model has
been upgraded to the current era of computer science.     ie:  fortran-2000
OTOH your model of PL/I apparently isnt advanced far (if at all) from its
birth-year 1965..


Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:42:19 GMT  
 PLI 2000

Quote:



> > Hi David

> > Well it shouldnt be mystifying that I expect some interest, for one its
> interesting and two I received several
> > encouraging postings to my original e-mail. If I had received zero I may
> well have had no enthusiasm.

> and just a few encouraging postings is sufficient for you to spend 1
> man-year on this project?
> Also you continue to ignore the fact that a windows compiler already exists
> for $113 and you will deliver MUCH less than what a user gets from IBM..  I
> can only conclude that the encouraging postings are assuming you are going
> to give away your compiler and thus save them the $113,  ARE YOU?

> > You will need to be more specific regarding your view that I am
> "over-stating" anything, let me know exactly what I
> > wrote that you take issue with.

> Using 2000 after any language's name implies that the language model has
> been upgraded to the current era of computer science.     ie:  Fortran-2000
> OTOH your model of PL/I apparently isnt advanced far (if at all) from its
> birth-year 1965..

I think he explained that he was just creating a different directory
name for his continued development on the compiler. And no, I would
not assume that FORTRAN-2000 would be a modern language, just some
marketing droid's idea of how to sell old shit with new shinola.

-dq



Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:59:58 GMT  
 PLI 2000



Quote:
> think he explained that he was just creating a different directory
> name for his continued development on the compiler.

I dont believe thats the primary reason, he is trying to give his compiler a
catchy name,  PL/I-2000 and of course any hint of life remaining in this now
obsolete language will get a automatic knee-jerk response here.

Quote:
> And no, I would not assume that FORTRAN-2000 would be a modern language,
just some
> marketing droid's idea of how to sell old shit with new shinola.

Old shit you say, have a look at the features in this compiler which uses
Fortran-2000 features plus more.

http://www.lahey.com/netwtpr1.htm#father



Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:35:53 GMT  
 PLI 2000
God, now he's trying to tell other people how they should be spending
their time!
Quote:


> > and just a few encouraging postings is sufficient for you to spend 1
> > man-year on this project?



Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:25:34 GMT  
 
 [ 11 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. PLI 2000 early registration deadline: August 25th.

2. PLI 2000: call for participation

3. PLI 2000: Call for Workshops

4. PLI 2000: call for participation

5. PLI 2000 early registration deadline: August 25th.

6. PLI 2000: Call for Workshops

7. PLI-2000 for NT

8. PLI-2000 Update

9. ANNOUNCE: PLI-2000 Ver 2.1 Released: PL/I Analysis for Y2K

10. PLI 2000 early registration deadline: August 25th.

11. PLI 2000: call for participation

12. PLI 2000: Call for Workshops

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software