Re: programming in PL/I

compilers@is-not-my.name
Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:30:06 -0000

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Re: Parser generator drb@msu.edu (2012-01-08)
Re: Parser generator gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-01-08)
Re: Parser generator arnold@skeeve.com (2012-01-11)
Re: programming in PL/I compilers@is-not-my.name (2012-01-12)
Re: programming in PL/I robert@prino.org (Robert AH Prins) (2012-01-14)
Re: programming in PL/I derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk (Derek M. Jones) (2012-01-14)
Re: programming in PL/I gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-01-15)
Re: programming in PL/I gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-01-15)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: compilers@is-not-my.name
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:30:06 -0000
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 12-01-009 12-01-010 12-01-013
Keywords: PL/I
Posted-Date: 13 Jan 2012 20:48:44 EST

On Thu Jan 12 07:18:12 2012 arnold@skeeve.com wrote:


> Is there a reason to prefer PL/I over C++ or Java?


Yes, several. It would be more relevant to ask if PL/I is preferable to C
since PL/I is not an object oriented language, is suitable for systems
programming (usually has but does not necessarily require a runtime), does
not have garbage collection, implementations don't use a VM, etc.


People coming from IBM envionments usually don't have any C experience but
often do have a reasonable working knowledge of PL/I or at least exposure to
it. PL/I is more powerful than C, is older, has good optimizing compilers
available, and I personally prefer it. About the only advantage of C over
PL/I is C usually has some provision for dropping into assembler. PL/I
doesn't offer this feature.


As usual, it comes down to what tools are available on your target platforms
and what you prefer.


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.