3 ms·
If you have to go to 1977 or prior to slag a language, there are tons of languages that will disappoint you.
by kjs3 2y ago
If you have to go to 1977 or prior to slag a language, there are tons of languages that will disappoint you.
- PaulHoule 2y agoPL/I
- Konohamaru 2y agoI think Programming Language One is the same type as Eureka Seven.
- pjmlp 2y agoI would assess C++ has already outpaced PL/I complexity, and I do enjoy using C++.
- PaulHoule 2y agoYou can get a C++ compiler which is (more or less) correct, I'm not sure that was ever quite true of PL/I.
- kjs3 2y agoI get the distinct feeling it's been a long time since IBM wrote PL/I compilers considering anyone but IBM. So 'correct' here might be 'what IBM needs'. YMMV.
- pjmlp 2y agoIt was for IBM and Unisys, I imagine. And then there is the whole DoD security assessment of Multics versus UNIX, where PL/I did play a major role versus C, so the compiler did work correctly enough. Just this week we're discussing a VC++ miscompilation on Reddit.
- shakna 2y agoIBM are still building and maintaining their PL/I compiler for z/OS, today. Though it is only compliant with specs up to 1979. The '87 ISO is only partially adopted.