5 ms·

Man they seemed so naive in those days. I bet they still feel nostalgic whenever they see `proc options(main)` or `put skip edit` though.

by bregma 7y ago

C1sc0cat 7y ago
You know this is Multics we are talking about here :-) I must be one of the few on hn who has actually programmed in Pl/1 on a system (Prime 750's) that used it as its systems programming language. It is a Dream Language it just F&%ing works
- mika9090 7y ago
  I worked in PL/1 for 4 years. Saying it is just "F&%ing works" made me laugh hard! The compilation never failed because the compiler assumed what you really wanted. I got many bizarre programs.
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    Must have had an odd code base then - I found it nice to work with. And in my experience Primes pl1/g Compiler did properly assume what a sane developer would want - well there was that one time I had to recompile the entire Pl1 part of our MR system and push it out to all 17 systems :-)
  - lucas_membrane 7y ago
    That was typical of PL/C and the silly IBM timesharing language based on PL/1, not so much of PL/1 itself.
- jes 7y ago
  Similar for me. Enjoyed a couple of years in college working in PL/1 on an Amdahl 470V/7. Good times!
- ralphc 7y ago
  If it was a dream language, why do you think it died out, and why did COBOL become dominant and survives to this day?
  - wrycoder 7y ago
    I used it in the early '70s. A principal problem was that the language was so extensive ("kitchen sink") that some programmers could be using features that others were simply unaware of and which conflicted during integration.
- prirun 7y ago
  I put a Prime minicomputer emulator online that has both PL/I-G and full PL/I. It's configured as a Prime 9950, a successor to the Prime 750. Count me as one of the few who has written production PL/I software for a Prime! telnet em.prirun.com 8002 for the subset G compiler telnet em.prirun.com 8005 for the full PL/I compiler Emacs is also installed on the first machine running rev 20 Primos, but not quite on the second running rev 23 Primos because I didn't have all the pieces. Enjoy!
pedrow 7y ago
I'd be interested to hear from those who have used both - how does it compare to Algol? Looking at wikipedia it seems similar in its syntax and also in the intention of the design. Also: I think I first heard of PL/I in the 1980s but only today have I discovered it is P.L. One rather than P.L. Eye - thanks, HN!
- lucas_membrane 7y ago
  PL/1 grew out of a project in the early 1960's to develop a successor to Fortran. It was decided very early on that it would do decimal arithmetic (like COBOL) and then that it would provide good support for record-oriented I/O and the common access methods used for sequential and random-access disk, tape, cards, printers, etc. typically attached to mainframe computers, which you pretty much needed to compile it anyway. This made it quite a horse of a different feather than Algol. Minicomputer and microcomputer versions of PL/1 subsequently appeared (I recall Digital Research had one that implemented something called subset G,), but these were limited subsets, pretty much matching simple implementations of Fortran, Pascal, or Modula-2 feature for feature -- not as elegant as Algol, but about as close to Algol as they were to IBM's full PL/1 level F. For a long time, many IBM System/360 and System/370 mainframe were not suitable to run the famous IBM OS/360, and there were two levels of simplified versions of the operating system (called DOS and DOS/VSE), and each of these, in turn, offered only its own distinct subset version of the full mainframe PL/1.
fghorow 7y ago
I learned to program with PL/1. I had forgotten about 'put skip edit'. I have no memory of what it was for. However, I'm sure some fine gray(er)beard will remind me here! ;-)
bitminer 7y ago
In retrospect, many of the observations are good, even foresightfull. I believe that VAX/VMS was based on some of these experiences plus careful reading of Structured Programming by Djikstra. Unfortunately, DEC didn't grok the performance issue of microcoded CISC and Sun Sparc ate their lunch. Lessons DEC learned: . Combining engineering of hardware and software at the same time . Networking as a medium of exchange including for storage (cluster interconnect, C I) . Diverse software support, from C, PL/I, Cobol, etc . VAXcluster as a means to converge management, storage, scalability, and so on Novel tech: . Software-supported coding, such as language-sensitive editing, w/o emacs . A basic data architecture, based on Rdb. Weak, but sort of functional Oopses: . RISC. Eventually they made Alpha but FP sucked, even architecturally

Man they seemed so naive in those days. I bet they still feel nostalgic whenever they see `proc options(main)` or `put skip edit` though.

by bregma 7y ago

Man they seemed so naive in those days. I bet they still feel nostalgic whenever they see `proc options(main)` or `put skip edit` though.

C1sc0cat 7y ago

You know this is Multics we are talking about here :-) I must be one of the few on hn who has actually programmed in Pl/1 on a system (Prime 750's) that used it as its systems programming language. It is a Dream Language it just F&%ing works

mika9090 7y ago
I worked in PL/1 for 4 years. Saying it is just "F&%ing works" made me laugh hard! The compilation never failed because the compiler assumed what you really wanted. I got many bizarre programs.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  Must have had an odd code base then - I found it nice to work with. And in my experience Primes pl1/g Compiler did properly assume what a sane developer would want - well there was that one time I had to recompile the entire Pl1 part of our MR system and push it out to all 17 systems :-)
- lucas_membrane 7y ago
  That was typical of PL/C and the silly IBM timesharing language based on PL/1, not so much of PL/1 itself.
jes 7y ago
Similar for me. Enjoyed a couple of years in college working in PL/1 on an Amdahl 470V/7. Good times!
ralphc 7y ago
If it was a dream language, why do you think it died out, and why did COBOL become dominant and survives to this day?
- wrycoder 7y ago
  I used it in the early '70s. A principal problem was that the language was so extensive ("kitchen sink") that some programmers could be using features that others were simply unaware of and which conflicted during integration.
prirun 7y ago
I put a Prime minicomputer emulator online that has both PL/I-G and full PL/I. It's configured as a Prime 9950, a successor to the Prime 750. Count me as one of the few who has written production PL/I software for a Prime! telnet em.prirun.com 8002 for the subset G compiler telnet em.prirun.com 8005 for the full PL/I compiler Emacs is also installed on the first machine running rev 20 Primos, but not quite on the second running rev 23 Primos because I didn't have all the pieces. Enjoy!

pedrow 7y ago

I'd be interested to hear from those who have used both - how does it compare to Algol? Looking at wikipedia it seems similar in its syntax and also in the intention of the design. Also: I think I first heard of PL/I in the 1980s but only today have I discovered it is P.L. One rather than P.L. Eye - thanks, HN!

lucas_membrane 7y ago
PL/1 grew out of a project in the early 1960's to develop a successor to Fortran. It was decided very early on that it would do decimal arithmetic (like COBOL) and then that it would provide good support for record-oriented I/O and the common access methods used for sequential and random-access disk, tape, cards, printers, etc. typically attached to mainframe computers, which you pretty much needed to compile it anyway. This made it quite a horse of a different feather than Algol. Minicomputer and microcomputer versions of PL/1 subsequently appeared (I recall Digital Research had one that implemented something called subset G,), but these were limited subsets, pretty much matching simple implementations of Fortran, Pascal, or Modula-2 feature for feature -- not as elegant as Algol, but about as close to Algol as they were to IBM's full PL/1 level F. For a long time, many IBM System/360 and System/370 mainframe were not suitable to run the famous IBM OS/360, and there were two levels of simplified versions of the operating system (called DOS and DOS/VSE), and each of these, in turn, offered only its own distinct subset version of the full mainframe PL/1.

fghorow 7y ago

I learned to program with PL/1. I had forgotten about 'put skip edit'. I have no memory of what it was for. However, I'm sure some fine gray(er)beard will remind me here! ;-)

bitminer 7y ago

In retrospect, many of the observations are good, even foresightfull. I believe that VAX/VMS was based on some of these experiences plus careful reading of Structured Programming by Djikstra. Unfortunately, DEC didn't grok the performance issue of microcoded CISC and Sun Sparc ate their lunch. Lessons DEC learned: . Combining engineering of hardware and software at the same time . Networking as a medium of exchange including for storage (cluster interconnect, C I) . Diverse software support, from C, PL/I, Cobol, etc . VAXcluster as a means to converge management, storage, scalability, and so on Novel tech: . Software-supported coding, such as language-sensitive editing, w/o emacs . A basic data architecture, based on Rdb. Weak, but sort of functional Oopses: . RISC. Eventually they made Alpha but FP sucked, even architecturally