looking for a PL/I compiler for 386+ in MSDOS or NT-DOS 
Author Message
 looking for a PL/I compiler for 386+ in MSDOS or NT-DOS

Looking for a free pl/i compiler on msdos/windows.

I have seeing a pli-80 on a CPM emulator
or a PC-DOS PL/I-86
and a RUN.c

still prefer a dos-extender like pl/i compiler

Thank you in advance

Billyc



Sun, 30 May 2004 00:32:31 GMT  
 looking for a PL/I compiler for 386+ in MSDOS or NT-DOS

Quote:
>Looking for a free pl/i compiler on msdos/windows.

nothing suggests itself.  ibm's personal pl/i isn't too expensive.

--
okay, have a sig then



Sun, 30 May 2004 06:30:58 GMT  
 looking for a PL/I compiler for 386+ in MSDOS or NT-DOS
Quote:

> Looking for a free pl/i compiler on msdos/windows.

> I have seeing a pli-80 on a CPM emulator
> or a PC-DOS PL/I-86
> and a RUN.c

> still prefer a dos-extender like pl/i compiler

Digital Research PL/I for DOS is available.
Quote:
> Thank you in advance

> Billyc



Sun, 30 May 2004 07:28:33 GMT  
 looking for a PL/I compiler for 386+ in MSDOS or NT-DOS
There are no free compilers that permit you to do any real work. There is a
toy compiler from Digital Research if you only plan to play around with a
PL/I subset. Otherwise you have to pay. IBM's Personal PL/I is quite cheap.


Quote:
> Looking for a free pl/i compiler on msdos/windows.

> I have seeing a pli-80 on a CPM emulator
> or a PC-DOS PL/I-86
> and a RUN.c

> still prefer a dos-extender like pl/i compiler

> Thank you in advance

> Billyc



Sun, 30 May 2004 16:12:14 GMT  
 looking for a PL/I compiler for 386+ in MSDOS or NT-DOS
The Personal PL/I compiler may not be what you want ...
It IS quite good, full featured and all. And inexpensive compaterd to
the the "real" compiler. However ... it must be run in a dos window of
an NT, or NT derived OS (like W2K). The compiled code will run in dos
just fine, but the compiler needs an NT code based system to run.

The compiled code runs in DOS and can be optimised for various levels
of intel processors. You can also produce windows code with it by
calling the widows API's.

On the other hand ... this is realy about the only game in town for a
"real" PL/I compiler for the price.

You can download it from the IBM website.
The documentation is online or you can print it out (as I have).
Like all IBM products the documentation is excelent.

Moo
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 09:12:14 +0100, "Mark Yudkin"

Quote:

>There are no free compilers that permit you to do any real work. There is a
>toy compiler from Digital Research if you only plan to play around with a
>PL/I subset. Otherwise you have to pay. IBM's Personal PL/I is quite cheap.



>> Looking for a free pl/i compiler on msdos/windows.

>> I have seeing a pli-80 on a CPM emulator
>> or a PC-DOS PL/I-86
>> and a RUN.c

>> still prefer a dos-extender like pl/i compiler

>> Thank you in advance

>> Billyc



Sun, 30 May 2004 22:30:23 GMT  
 looking for a PL/I compiler for 386+ in MSDOS or NT-DOS

Quote:

> There are no free compilers that permit you to do any real work.

Digital Research PL/I is free for non-commercial use.
It implements the ANSI subset, and would be adequate
for even serious work.


Mon, 31 May 2004 07:06:33 GMT  
 looking for a PL/I compiler for 386+ in MSDOS or NT-DOS
Wish I knew it ran under DOS ... for me it probably would have been
good enough!



Quote:

>> There are no free compilers that permit you to do any real work.

>Digital Research PL/I is free for non-commercial use.
>It implements the ANSI subset, and would be adequate
>for even serious work.



Tue, 01 Jun 2004 12:49:40 GMT  
 looking for a PL/I compiler for 386+ in MSDOS or NT-DOS

Quote:

> Wish I knew it ran under DOS ... for me it probably would have been
> good enough!




> >> There are no free compilers that permit you to do any real work.

> >Digital Research PL/I is free for non-commercial use.
> >It implements the ANSI subset, and would be adequate
> >for even serious work.

Subset G is indeed quite adequate for serious work.  However, if I
recall correctly the D.R. implementation was limited to a 64KB code
space and a 64KB data space. The linker (provided with the compiler)
allowed for overlays of code segments up to 7 levels of nesting.  When I
had an application that required a lot of code I created a small root
segment (usually less than 4KB) and then swapped overlays (up to 60KB
each) as needed. There is no restriction on the number of overlays at
any level. The most serious limitation is the 64KB data space for the
sum total of all variables and I/O buffers.  Using CONTROLLED storage
helped somewhat.

Being a DOS implementation the PL/I itself only did ASCII characters to
the CRT. Digital Research also had a companion product called Display
Manager whose runtime could be linked in with the PL/I object code.
Display Manager was still character based but it automated such things
as blinking, underlining, high-intensity, half-intensity, and echo
suppression (password entry). It also handled row and column addressing
to put output anywhere on the face of a CRT.



Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:41:52 GMT  
 looking for a PL/I compiler for 386+ in MSDOS or NT-DOS
I found serval PL/I free compiler for PC

1) PL/I-80 runing under a Zsim2.42 with manual/samples/smome utilities ...
(version 1.3)
2) PL/I-86 runing under DOS  (version 1.0)
3) A PL/I-32 complier (syntax check only) from internet test driver
4) RUN.C An Interp of PL/I-like (no procedure call)
5) XPL in PC-DOS (from RU) a 360 simulator for xsplsm (This one woks good on
my pc)
6) XPL for FreeBSD (I load to FreeBSD 4.4, but haveing problem to build the
sub-monitor)
7) The hercules for OS360 (I did not try this yet, anyone please post this
results)

If any one want try to port the item 6, here is the web-address

http://www.geocities.com/xpl_lang/

Thanks for the answers

Billyc



Quote:

> > Wish I knew it ran under DOS ... for me it probably would have been
> > good enough!




> > >> There are no free compilers that permit you to do any real work.

> > >Digital Research PL/I is free for non-commercial use.
> > >It implements the ANSI subset, and would be adequate
> > >for even serious work.

> Subset G is indeed quite adequate for serious work.  However, if I
> recall correctly the D.R. implementation was limited to a 64KB code
> space and a 64KB data space. The linker (provided with the compiler)
> allowed for overlays of code segments up to 7 levels of nesting.  When I
> had an application that required a lot of code I created a small root
> segment (usually less than 4KB) and then swapped overlays (up to 60KB
> each) as needed. There is no restriction on the number of overlays at
> any level. The most serious limitation is the 64KB data space for the
> sum total of all variables and I/O buffers.  Using CONTROLLED storage
> helped somewhat.

> Being a DOS implementation the PL/I itself only did ASCII characters to
> the CRT. Digital Research also had a companion product called Display
> Manager whose runtime could be linked in with the PL/I object code.
> Display Manager was still character based but it automated such things
> as blinking, underlining, high-intensity, half-intensity, and echo
> suppression (password entry). It also handled row and column addressing
> to put output anywhere on the face of a CRT.



Sat, 05 Jun 2004 07:07:48 GMT  
 looking for a PL/I compiler for 386+ in MSDOS or NT-DOS
PLI-80 and PLI-86 are not even remotely related to PL/I, with the sole
exception of the use of three of the same characters in their names. They
are Intel-created langauges used for (low level) programming of the 8080 and
8086 in embedded systems (and as such are no longer relevant).

XPL is inspired by PL/I, but, as the XPL web pages clearly state "The XPL
language is similar to PL/I, but is not PL/I." (using your reference:
http://www.geocities.com/xpl_lang/ldindex.html). The "DOS" version is
actually a 360 compiler, as is Hercules. Both are ancient, OS360 is long
gone.

According to your own text, RUN.C is for a "PL/I-like" language, and PLI-32
is a syntax checker only.

Facit: You have found no PL/I compilers.


Quote:
> I found serval PL/I free compiler for PC

> 1) PL/I-80 runing under a Zsim2.42 with manual/samples/smome utilities ...
> (version 1.3)
> 2) PL/I-86 runing under DOS  (version 1.0)
> 3) A PL/I-32 complier (syntax check only) from internet test driver
> 4) RUN.C An Interp of PL/I-like (no procedure call)
> 5) XPL in PC-DOS (from RU) a 360 simulator for xsplsm (This one woks good
on
> my pc)
> 6) XPL for FreeBSD (I load to FreeBSD 4.4, but haveing problem to build
the
> sub-monitor)
> 7) The hercules for OS360 (I did not try this yet, anyone please post this
> results)

> If any one want try to port the item 6, here is the web-address

> http://www.geocities.com/xpl_lang/

> Thanks for the answers

> Billyc




> > > Wish I knew it ran under DOS ... for me it probably would have been
> > > good enough!




> > > >> There are no free compilers that permit you to do any real work.

> > > >Digital Research PL/I is free for non-commercial use.
> > > >It implements the ANSI subset, and would be adequate
> > > >for even serious work.

> > Subset G is indeed quite adequate for serious work.  However, if I
> > recall correctly the D.R. implementation was limited to a 64KB code
> > space and a 64KB data space. The linker (provided with the compiler)
> > allowed for overlays of code segments up to 7 levels of nesting.  When I
> > had an application that required a lot of code I created a small root
> > segment (usually less than 4KB) and then swapped overlays (up to 60KB
> > each) as needed. There is no restriction on the number of overlays at
> > any level. The most serious limitation is the 64KB data space for the
> > sum total of all variables and I/O buffers.  Using CONTROLLED storage
> > helped somewhat.

> > Being a DOS implementation the PL/I itself only did ASCII characters to
> > the CRT. Digital Research also had a companion product called Display
> > Manager whose runtime could be linked in with the PL/I object code.
> > Display Manager was still character based but it automated such things
> > as blinking, underlining, high-intensity, half-intensity, and echo
> > suppression (password entry). It also handled row and column addressing
> > to put output anywhere on the face of a CRT.



Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:04:51 GMT  
 looking for a PL/I compiler for 386+ in MSDOS or NT-DOS

Quote:

>XPL is inspired by PL/I, but, as the XPL web pages clearly state "The XPL
>language is similar to PL/I, but is not PL/I." (using your reference:
>http://www.geocities.com/xpl_lang/ldindex.html). The "DOS" version is
>actually a 360 compiler, as is Hercules. Both are ancient, OS360 is long
>gone.

Hercules is an IBM S/370, ESA/390, or Z/ simulator.  The original
IBM PL/I compiler, PL/I (F) is available to run under any OS that
runs on Hercules, such as OS/360 MVT (available and free),
MVS 3.8 (available and free), or other not free OS's.  
As Hercules runs under Windows on PC's, you can run a real PL/I
compiler on your PC.   There really are people running OS/360, though!

-- glen



Sat, 05 Jun 2004 17:10:54 GMT  
 looking for a PL/I compiler for 386+ in MSDOS or NT-DOS
Is Hercules free? Or is it an expensive way to run an old PL/I compiler
(newer compilers aren't free)?


Quote:

> >XPL is inspired by PL/I, but, as the XPL web pages clearly state "The XPL
> >language is similar to PL/I, but is not PL/I." (using your reference:
> >http://www.geocities.com/xpl_lang/ldindex.html). The "DOS" version is
> >actually a 360 compiler, as is Hercules. Both are ancient, OS360 is long
> >gone.

> Hercules is an IBM S/370, ESA/390, or Z/ simulator.  The original
> IBM PL/I compiler, PL/I (F) is available to run under any OS that
> runs on Hercules, such as OS/360 MVT (available and free),
> MVS 3.8 (available and free), or other not free OS's.
> As Hercules runs under Windows on PC's, you can run a real PL/I
> compiler on your PC.   There really are people running OS/360, though!

> -- glen



Mon, 07 Jun 2004 15:05:52 GMT  
 looking for a PL/I compiler for 386+ in MSDOS or NT-DOS

Quote:

> PLI-80 and PLI-86 are not even remotely related to PL/I, with the sole
> exception of the use of three of the same characters in their names. They
> are Intel-created langauges used for (low level) programming of the 8080 and
> 8086 in embedded systems (and as such are no longer relevant).

With all due respect, Mark, I think you are confusing Intel's PLM with
the PLI-80 and PLI-86 implementations of Subset G by Digital Research.
I have done serious programming with PLI-80 and -86 (complete
interactive relational database). There are a few Subset G features not
implemented but most of them stem from lack of OS support (CP/M &
IBM/MS-DOS).
Quote:

> XPL is inspired by PL/I, but, as the XPL web pages clearly state "The XPL
> language is similar to PL/I, but is not PL/I." (using your reference:
> http://www.geocities.com/xpl_lang/ldindex.html). The "DOS" version is
> actually a 360 compiler, as is Hercules. Both are ancient, OS360 is long
> gone.

> According to your own text, RUN.C is for a "PL/I-like" language, and PLI-32
> is a syntax checker only.

> Facit: You have found no PL/I compilers.



> > I found serval PL/I free compiler for PC

> > 1) PL/I-80 runing under a Zsim2.42 with manual/samples/smome utilities ...
> > (version 1.3)
> > 2) PL/I-86 runing under DOS  (version 1.0)
> > 3) A PL/I-32 complier (syntax check only) from internet test driver
> > 4) RUN.C An Interp of PL/I-like (no procedure call)
> > 5) XPL in PC-DOS (from RU) a 360 simulator for xsplsm (This one woks good
> on
> > my pc)
> > 6) XPL for FreeBSD (I load to FreeBSD 4.4, but haveing problem to build
> the
> > sub-monitor)
> > 7) The hercules for OS360 (I did not try this yet, anyone please post this
> > results)

> > If any one want try to port the item 6, here is the web-address

> > http://www.geocities.com/xpl_lang/

> > Thanks for the answers

> > Billyc




> > > > Wish I knew it ran under DOS ... for me it probably would have been
> > > > good enough!




> > > > >> There are no free compilers that permit you to do any real work.

> > > > >Digital Research PL/I is free for non-commercial use.
> > > > >It implements the ANSI subset, and would be adequate
> > > > >for even serious work.

> > > Subset G is indeed quite adequate for serious work.  However, if I
> > > recall correctly the D.R. implementation was limited to a 64KB code
> > > space and a 64KB data space. The linker (provided with the compiler)
> > > allowed for overlays of code segments up to 7 levels of nesting.  When I
> > > had an application that required a lot of code I created a small root
> > > segment (usually less than 4KB) and then swapped overlays (up to 60KB
> > > each) as needed. There is no restriction on the number of overlays at
> > > any level. The most serious limitation is the 64KB data space for the
> > > sum total of all variables and I/O buffers.  Using CONTROLLED storage
> > > helped somewhat.

> > > Being a DOS implementation the PL/I itself only did ASCII characters to
> > > the CRT. Digital Research also had a companion product called Display
> > > Manager whose runtime could be linked in with the PL/I object code.
> > > Display Manager was still character based but it automated such things
> > > as blinking, underlining, high-intensity, half-intensity, and echo
> > > suppression (password entry). It also handled row and column addressing
> > > to put output anywhere on the face of a CRT.



Tue, 08 Jun 2004 02:41:58 GMT  
 looking for a PL/I compiler for 386+ in MSDOS or NT-DOS

Quote:

> Is Hercules free? Or is it an expensive way to run an old PL/I compiler

(snippage)

Yes, Hercules is free.



Tue, 08 Jun 2004 09:53:14 GMT  
 
 [ 15 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. DOS (386+) Oberon compiler?

2. Looking for DOS PL/I Compiler

3. Releases of Free Ada Compilers for DOS/386 and Macintosh

4. Best compiler for a 386 (DOS/OS2v2)?

5. 386-Fortran compiler for DOS wanted

6. Looking for 386 Ada cross-compilers

7. Looking for Ada compiler for uport System V.3/386

8. SCM for DOS or DOS/386

9. Lahey EM/32 w OS/386, NDP-386 w Pharlap, Watcom 77/386

10. Need tool for crunching PL/M-386 source code

11. DOWNLOAD PL/I IF YOU WANT (NT or DOS)

12. j/386 problems with DOS extender

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software