phipps@garth.UUCP (Clay Phipps) (07/19/89)
In article <695@bbking.KSP.Unisys.COM>, rmarks@KSP.Unisys.COM (Richard Marks) writes: > >For the 1100's we use [...] a bit of an language called PLUS >(Programming Language for Univac Systems). >PLUS is the expected ALGOL derivative and resembles PASCAL. ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ PLUS dates from the years when a name beginning "Programming Language ...", especially if "..." included a "/", identified a language *expected* to be a direct derivative of "Programming Language One": PL/I. PL/I was a major descendant (some call it a "mongrelization") of FORTRAN and COBOL, in addition to Algol. Its earliest working name was FORTRAN VI, but it was introduced as the "New Programming Language": NPL, to associate it with IBM's then-upcoming "New Product Line", later known as "System/360". It remained "NPL" until the National Physical Lab (NPL) in the U.K. objected, resulting in renaming the language "PL/I". That turf scuffle in 1965 foreshadowed today's legal climate, but fortunately did not burden us with "PL/I (tm) International Business Machines Corporation" (cf. "Ada", "dBase"). Hmmm. Maybe I should write "NPL (tm) National Physical Laboratory, U.K." :-(. -- [The foregoing may or may not represent the position, if any, of my employer, ] [ who is identified solely to allow the reader to account for personal biases.] Clay Phipps Intergraph APD: 2400#4 Geng Road, Palo Alto, CA 93403; 415/494-8800 UseNet: {apple,ingr,pyramid,sri-unix}!garth!phipps EcoNet: cphipps
jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) (07/20/89)
phipps@garth.UUCP (Clay Phipps) > [PL/I] remained "NPL" until the National Physical Lab (NPL) in the U.K. > objected, > resulting in renaming the language "PL/I". That turf scuffle in 1965 > foreshadowed today's legal climate, but fortunately did not burden us with > "PL/I (tm) International Business Machines Corporation" (cf. "Ada", "dBase"). I recall reading somewhere that IBM actually copyrighted PL/1, PL/2, PL/3, ..., PL/60. They just weren't too rigorous about enforcement. A trademark is actually a good idea. Had the DOD not trademarked the name ``Ada'', then any random could come along, subset the language or add features, and call it an ``Ada'' compiler. By trademarking the name, the DOD can require all Ada compilers must implement the full language, and pass the certification test. The TRAC string processing language (circa mid '60s) also was trademarked. Protecting the language from butchery by randoms is a good thing. (Note: this is not the same thing as letting an ANSI committee ``standardize'' it. ANSI committees are frequently worse than the randoms.) Jonathan A. Chandross Internet: jac@paul.rutgers.edu UUCP: rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!jac