Re: OT: PL/I was Re: Please welcome . . .

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:50:28 -0500, Ph. D. <phild@...> wrote:

>Jeff Jones wrote:
> >
> > Ph. D. wrote:
> > >
> > >PL/I was implemented by a number of manufacturers. I have
> > >used it on a Univac 1110 mainframe
> >
> > Did the programs actually ever run??? Or the compiler for that matter!
> > I much preferred FORTRAN or assembler on the 1100 (or Pascal when it
> > became available).
>
> Sure they did. The early compilers had some problems,
> but that's to be expected. Of course, FORTRAN was the
> annointed language on the 1100, and Univac put most of
> their resources into it.
True.

> I've always had a passion for assembler, but most other
> programmers seem to turn up their noses at it.
True. At one time that meant I was practically assured of getting
any job that required assembler.

> My two favorite machines in terms of machine language
> were the 1100 and the DEC system 10. Interestingly, they
> both had a word size of 36 bits.
The UNIVAC was neat, although I never found a use for more than 2
levels of indirect addressing. I never used the DEC system 10. One
of my professors liked it. At one time a lot of mainframes used 36
bits. The multics machine, for example. I think IBM had one before
the 360, and possibly the original CDC machine.

> (We also had a compiler called RALPH on the 1110 written at the
> University of Maryland which would compile code in FORTRAN and
> MAD. [Anyone remember MAD?] You could switch back and forth
> between languages in the middle of a source file.)
The first compiler I ever used was RALPH. I never used the MAD
features (NORMAL MODE IS INTEGER ?). Learning the FORTRAN 77
standard was more important. Since you had RALPH, you probably
had his buddy ED. Did you have the DUM system too? (I discovered
a useful bug in it)

Jeff

>--Ph. D.
>