Re: Basic structure COBOL

Pete Dashwood wrote:
"CG" <Carl.Gehr.ButNoSPAMStuff@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:d0070$465cc8b1$d06620ed$2489@xxxxxxxxxxx
Pete Dashwood wrote:
"Robin Lee" <robinlee@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:XaCdnd91JbmVO8HbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
HeyBub wrote:
Get
Mull
Put
Actually I think that's PL1.


LOL! Nice one, Robin... :-)

It almost is...
Of course, it is PL/I [not PL1], but in a thread like this, I guess close counts... [No comment on the rest.]
Carl

Why would you correct him on the name of the language, Carl?

It was originally PL/I as you state. IBM believed everyone would move to it so, "Program Language/ International"

When this dream failed to eventuate, they renamed it as their first attempt, and later manuals showed "PL/1".

(I have seen IBM manuals with each of these names on the cover, depending on when they were published.)

We have never seen, and are now unlikely to, PL/2.

Why? Well, I guess, since the rest of the thread was certainly not going to provide a serious response to the original question, the quality of the thread was not going to be harmed by the comment. And, if someone is going to criticize something, they should at least improve their credibility by demonstrating that they know the correct name of the product. I react the same way when I see 'Cobol' instead of 'COBOL' in print.

I doubt you have ever seen an 'official' IBM publication that used PL/1 or PL1 or PLI. IBM is very careful about things like that, but humans being what they are, and because IBM does not have a lawyer review every writing from its employees, there are cases where errors slip through. When I have an opportunity, I often suggest to those individuals that they should correct their text.

And, FWIW, the 'I' was never for 'International' but simply a Roman Numeral 'I'. And, to be completely factual, the 'original' name of the language was not PL/I [Programming Language/One], but was 'New Programming Language' and referred to as 'NPL' in some cases. That acronym was the subject of a loud objection by the UK National Measurement Laboratory, so IBM changed the name.

DL/I was another product, similarly named that was often referred to incorrectly. While I do not know for sure, I believe that the reason DB2 was named as it is, was due to the confusions with DL/I and PL/I. Thus DB2 was picked rather than DB/II or DB/2.

But, I guess you'll not accept DB2 as a viable database until there is a DB3...




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: COMPILER PERFORMANCE
    ... IBM did produce a statement to inform users how to write efficient code ... for the PL/I-F compiler. ... Fortran to S/360 PL/I. ... We even threatened to acquire a CDC machine and not even try to do further conversions to PL/I. ...
    (comp.lang.pl1)
  • Re: COMPILER PERFORMANCE
    ... IBM did produce a statement to inform users how to write efficient code ... That was before the compiler was released. ... Fortran to S/360 PL/I. ...
    (comp.lang.pl1)
  • Re: Put out to Pasture ?
    ... WalterR wrote: ... COBOL because IBM urged them to, explaining that PL/I demand is insufficient and that COBOL therefore will be the greater beneficiary of language/compiler development going forward. ...
    (comp.lang.pl1)
  • Re: "IBM PL/I for Windows" is a product
    ... Just to establish that I DO have something to do with PL/I and the status of PL/I within IBM -- AND so Robin will not continue to ruin his credibility and say that I have "nothing to do with PL/I" as he FALSELY MALIGNED Bill: ... Project Manager with the languages projects of IBM user groups ... PL/I for Windows can only be ordered as part of a larger ...
    (comp.lang.pl1)
  • Re: Basic structure COBOL
    ... Actually I think that's PL1. ... IBM believed everyone would move to ... While I do not know for sure, I believe that the reason DB2 ... Today it is a perfectly good RDB implementation. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)