3 ms·

PL/1 was an IBM mainframe language; but Intel made a compiler for a stripped-down version targeting 8086, called PL/M (Programming Language for Microprocessors)

PL/1 was an IBM mainframe language; but Intel made a compiler for a stripped-down version targeting 8086, called PL/M (Programming Language for Microprocessors). PL/M was (I believe) the main language used in writing the CTOS/BTOS operating system (Convergent Technologies/Burroughs). PL/M was a nice language. It was suited for system programming (structs, pointers). I first came across it in some introductory programming book I bought from a second-hand crate. A lot of my early programming lessons came from that book, even though I had no access to a PL/M compiler. I have no idea who wrote it, or what its title was.

Rochus 4y ago
PL/M was a nice language indeed; I used it on embedded 8085 based systems; but I don't think it had many overlaps with PL/I; but there were similarities.
karmakaze 4y ago
My encounter with PL/I was with some 3270-style Wang terminals for their minicomputers. They were programmable by writing PL/I which got compiled and stored in the terminal's NVRAM. There wasn't much you couldn't do with it, I made macros that could copy blocks of text between two different terminal sessions as well as a bunch of cursor positioning and general clipboard operations. PL/I is quite a nice language.
wglb 4y ago
Having programmed in both, the most similarity is in the name. PL/I is a vastly complicated language that needs a specialized grammar to describe and PL/M works on microprocessors. Oh, and another flaw with the article is that PL/M was not invented by Gary Kildall, not Intel.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  Well, I said that Intel produced a compiler. I see from Wikipedia that Kildall did indeed develop PL/M; the same article says that Intel "promoted" it. The compiler that we used was branded Intel. It sounds like Kildall developed it for Intel. [Edit] My notion that PL/M was a cut-down version of PL/I was clearly wrong; I never used PL/I, the closest I got was reviewing a few documentation pages.

Rochus 4y ago

PL/M was a nice language indeed; I used it on embedded 8085 based systems; but I don't think it had many overlaps with PL/I; but there were similarities.

karmakaze 4y ago

My encounter with PL/I was with some 3270-style Wang terminals for their minicomputers. They were programmable by writing PL/I which got compiled and stored in the terminal's NVRAM. There wasn't much you couldn't do with it, I made macros that could copy blocks of text between two different terminal sessions as well as a bunch of cursor positioning and general clipboard operations. PL/I is quite a nice language.

wglb 4y ago

Having programmed in both, the most similarity is in the name. PL/I is a vastly complicated language that needs a specialized grammar to describe and PL/M works on microprocessors. Oh, and another flaw with the article is that PL/M was not invented by Gary Kildall, not Intel.

denton-scratch 4y ago
Well, I said that Intel produced a compiler. I see from Wikipedia that Kildall did indeed develop PL/M; the same article says that Intel "promoted" it. The compiler that we used was branded Intel. It sounds like Kildall developed it for Intel. [Edit] My notion that PL/M was a cut-down version of PL/I was clearly wrong; I never used PL/I, the closest I got was reviewing a few documentation pages.