>> And let's not mention COBOL.
>
> Although COBOL is not my favorite tool, I don't know of
> any arguably superior replacements for it (all things
> considered) in the environments where it is used.
That's what Java's for these days. The AS/400 Java implementation is
top-notch, and it would have to be if you wanted to get people to
rewrite two decades of RPG and COBOL in it.
> So, enjoy your sports car, but don't disparage the
> semi in the next lane over...
Think of the damage it's doing to the environment, though...
Ruby: Emissions Trading for Geeks.
Martin
···
> At 1:56 PM +0900 10/11/06, Hal Fulton wrote:
John W. Kennedy wrote:
Rich Morin wrote:
And let's not mention COBOL.
Although COBOL is not my favorite tool, I don't know of
any arguably superior replacements for it (all things
considered) in the environments where it is used.
PL/I and Ada '95.
PL/I was intended to replace both Fortran and COBOL. In fact it did
neither. Is PL/I even still in use today? I don't recall seeing an open
source PL/I compiler.
Ada, on the other hand, was intended to be a language for managing large
projects. I think it was a beautiful design, as far as I know it is
still in use today, and there is in fact an open source compiler.
So ... one out of two ain't bad, eh?
···
At 1:56 PM +0900 10/11/06, Hal Fulton wrote:
Well, there's JPL/I.
Bill
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
···
John W. Kennedy wrote:
Rich Morin wrote:
At 1:56 PM +0900 10/11/06, Hal Fulton wrote:
And let's not mention COBOL.
Although COBOL is not my favorite tool, I don't know of
any arguably superior replacements for it (all things
considered) in the environments where it is used.
PL/I and Ada '95.
PL/I was intended to replace both Fortran and COBOL. In fact it did
neither. Is PL/I even still in use today? I don't recall seeing an open
source PL/I compiler.
Ada, on the other hand, was intended to be a language for managing large
projects. I think it was a beautiful design, as far as I know it is
still in use today, and there is in fact an open source compiler.
So ... one out of two ain't bad, eh?
Ada, on the other hand, was intended to be a language for managing large
projects. I think it was a beautiful design, as far as I know it is
still in use today, and there is in fact an open source compiler.
So ... one out of two ain't bad, eh?
Ada never took off outside defence and aerospace industries, so it's now intrinsically associated with them. It's a bit of a bondage-and-discipline language, all told. You spend as much time satisfying the compiler's neuroses as you do writing good code.
A high-functioning-autistic object-pascal.
Also, it has been steadily losing ground to Java.
Martin
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
John W. Kennedy wrote:
Rich Morin wrote:
And let's not mention COBOL.
Although COBOL is not my favorite tool, I don't know of
any arguably superior replacements for it (all things
considered) in the environments where it is used.
PL/I and Ada '95.
PL/I was intended to replace both Fortran and COBOL. In fact it did
neither. Is PL/I even still in use today?
Yes.
I don't recall seeing an open
source PL/I compiler.
There have been some efforts to genericize the old (F) compiler (though it was written in assembler), which IBM published freely back in the 60's, when virtually all software was more or less open source, and someone else is working on a gcc-based PL/I compiler right now. See comp.lang.pl1. In any case, PL/I is still very much available on IBM mainframes -- in fact, a brand-new compiler just came out a few years ago.
The bad news is that it still lacks OO.
Ada, on the other hand, was intended to be a language for managing large
projects. I think it was a beautiful design, as far as I know it is
still in use today, and there is in fact an open source compiler.
Ada 2005 is out.
Many features of Ada, by the way, were designed with the philosophy, "PL/I had a good idea, but got it wrong; let's see if we can do better."
···
At 1:56 PM +0900 10/11/06, Hal Fulton wrote:
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Only in the sense that the source was available, most commonly on
microfiche, and primarily to help you read dumps so you could debug
your, and often IBM's software.
···
On 10/12/06, John W. Kennedy <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote:
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> I don't recall seeing an open
> source PL/I compiler.
There have been some efforts to genericize the old (F) compiler (though
it was written in assembler), which IBM published freely back in the
60's, when virtually all software was more or less open source,
--
Rick DeNatale
My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/