orville@weyrich.UUCP (Orville R. Weyrich) (06/04/91)
Hi! This seems to be my week for needing strange and exotic things. I need to obtain a PL/I compiler (close to full implementation) for any of the three computers which I have: Microport Unix System V/386 MS-DOS CP/M (just about any soft-sector 5 1/4" format will do). I would be grateful for any recommendations as to where I can find such an animal. Also, if you have one you don't need, how about letting me have it cheap? Thanks, Orville. -------------------------------------- ****************************** Orville R. Weyrich, Jr., Ph.D. Certified Systems Professional Internet: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net Weyrich Computer Consulting Voice: (602) 391-0821 POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261 Fax: (602) 391-0023 (Yes! I'm available) -------------------------------------- ******************************
dww@math.fu-berlin.de (Debora Weber-Wulff) (06/06/91)
orville@weyrich.UUCP (Orville R. Weyrich) writes: > >I need to obtain a PL/I compiler (close to full implementation) for any of > > Microport Unix System V/386 > MS-DOS > CP/M (just about any soft-sector 5 1/4" format will do). PL/I? On an MS-DOS or CP/M (!!!) platform with close to full implementation? Well, the beast compiler we used to use on our IBM 370 was a wee bit on the overweight side. I mean, when you stuff all the goodies from Algol, COBOL, FORTRAN and whatnot in one bag, it won't exactly be petite. But lots of luck, and let us know if you find anything! > -- Debora Weber-Wulff snail: FU Berlin, ZI Fachdidaktiken, Habelschwerdter Allee 45, W-1000 Berlin 33 email: weberwu@inf.fu-berlin.de, dww@math.fu-berlin.de
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (06/06/91)
dww@math.fu-berlin.de (Debora Weber-Wulff) writes: >PL/I? On an MS-DOS or CP/M (!!!) platform with close to full >implementation? Well, the beast compiler we used to use on our I had a PL/1 compiler for MS-DOS about 5 years ago. I'll look around my basement to see if I can come up with the manufacturer (I know it was distributed by IBM). -- Conor P. Cahill (703)430-9247 Virtual Technologies, Inc. uunet!virtech!cpcahil 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160 Sterling, VA 22170
tpoind@skipy (Tom Poindexter) (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun06.124251.241@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes: >dww@math.fu-berlin.de (Debora Weber-Wulff) writes: >>PL/I? On an MS-DOS or CP/M (!!!) platform with close to full >>implementation? Well, the beast compiler we used to use on our comment: remember that long ago, in a place far away, Fortran & Cobol were compiled on cpus with 4096 words of memory (not kilobytes or megabytes, just 4,096). > >I had a PL/1 compiler for MS-DOS about 5 years ago. I'll look around >my basement to see if I can come up with the manufacturer (I know it >was distributed by IBM). > It was distributed by Digital Research. The compiler first came out for 8080 in CP/M, then migrated to 8086 & MS-DOS. It was *quite* buggy; I don't think DR ever released any version beyond 1.0. The compiler supposedly supported PL/I ANSI Subset G. There is some sort of PL/I language *interpreter* on Simtel20. Look for RUNPLI or some such. -- Tom Poindexter tpoind@uswest.com ..!uunet!boulder!uswat!tpoind /usr/bin/postnews: $HOME/.signature rejected, poor taste
shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) (06/06/91)
In article <60LR3ND@math.fu-berlin.de> dww@math.fu-berlin.de (Debora Weber-Wulff) writes: >PL/I? On an MS-DOS or CP/M (!!!) platform with close to full >implementation? Digital Research has (had?) a CP/M PL/I compiler, subset G. My dim recollection is that it was painfully slow and had about eleventy- five passes, but it may be what you're looking for. -- Software longa, hardware brevis Melinda Shore - Cornell Information Technologies - shore@theory.tn.cornell.edu
jamesp@world.std.com (james M peterson) (06/07/91)
As I remember the digital research pl/1 compiler was not real compatable with our vax pl/1 stuff - as in major recoding.
bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (06/07/91)
>dww@math.fu-berlin.de (Debora Weber-Wulff) writes: >>PL/I? On an MS-DOS or CP/M (!!!) platform with close to full >>implementation? Well, the beast compiler we used to use on our cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) replies: >I had a PL/1 compiler for MS-DOS about 5 years ago. I'll look around >my basement to see if I can come up with the manufacturer (I know it >was distributed by IBM). The Digital Research PL/I compiler was a rather rich subset G implementation. The G subset is far from "big" PL/I but it is quite adequate (I missed the select) for most practical things. Moreover, since PL/I is so unpopular, I found the code to be very portable, nobody wants to enhance anything. The most robust implementation was for CP/M-80, worked great on 8080, 8085, and Z80 machines, I never checked the later models. The CP/M-86 version was a hastily xlated (the xlate program was written in PL/I-80 and the turkeys lost the source!) and although a little wobbly, also worked rather well. When it appeared that CP/M-86 was going to lose, big time, to DOS they did a quick and dirty conversion to DOS 1.1 [sic] and it was the worst of the bunch. It was cantakerous and generally unreliable. I don't know which one IBM shipped, probably CP/M-86, I doubt that the DOS version could have passed even the least stringent acceptance tests. That bit of museum work out of the way, LPI has a rather fully implemented PL/I for '386 UNIX and while I have no experience with it, the genes are good. It, like LPI's other languages, was shrunk down from "big" PL/I and was written in PL/I. Maybe their C compiler is written in C, but I'm pretty sure their others are written in PL/I. I'm a little sorry that the language fell into such ill repute, if you avoid the chrome and tail fins it's a pretty good language. I lust for its BCD arithmetic for money calculations and I still understand its structures better than C. It's certainly possible to write a bad program in PL/I but it's lots easier to write something unreadable in C. If LPI did V/386 PL/I correctly, I have no reason to believe they didn't, it should be trim and compact. They've certainly got their code generator act together by now and the linker shouldn't carry along any baggage you didn't ask for. I'll also speculate that it's subset G with some extensions (select maybe? huh? Huh? :-) which should be sufficient for as much work as you'd want to do on a '386. -- Bill Kennedy internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM or ssbn!bill@attmail.COM uucp {att,cs.utexas.edu,pyramid!daver}!ssbn.wlk.com!bill
kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) (06/07/91)
In article <1991Jun7.120942.3626@world.std.com> jamesp@world.std.com (james M peterson) writes: >As I remember the digital research pl/1 compiler was not real compatable >with our vax pl/1 stuff - as in major recoding. The DR PL/I was a PL/I subset G compiler, whereas the VMS PL/I is a full implementation. PL/I was the Ada of the 1960's; enormous with every programmer using a different subset. The DR compiler was still being sold as late as 1983. I have a manual for it somewhere, though I don't have the software. --scott
clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) (06/08/91)
In article <60LR3ND@math.fu-berlin.de> dww@math.fu-berlin.de (Debora Weber-Wulff) writes: >orville@weyrich.UUCP (Orville R. Weyrich) writes: >> >>I need to obtain a PL/I compiler (close to full implementation) for any of >> Microport Unix System V/386 >> MS-DOS >> CP/M (just about any soft-sector 5 1/4" format will do). >PL/I? On an MS-DOS or CP/M (!!!) platform with close to full >implementation? Well, the beast compiler we used to use on our >IBM 370 was a wee bit on the overweight side. I mean, when you >stuff all the goodies from Algol, COBOL, FORTRAN and whatnot >in one bag, it won't exactly be petite. But lots of luck, and let >us know if you find anything! Sure, such things were available. Digital Research Inc sold a PL/1G compiler for CP/M. "G" was supposed to be a relatively machine independent subset of fully bloated IBM PL/1. Supposedly a semi-international standard. PL/1 G was available on a lot of different platforms. Maybe DRI still has a few copies of it, perhaps for machines other than CP/M. Also, LPI (I think it was LPI, or maybe it was Greenhills) builds their compilers in PL/1, and since they have to port PL/1 first to each platform, there's likely to be a commercial version of their PL/1 for the platform you want. I pondered using PL/1G on my CP/M machine, then I discovered it didn't allow you to "*" array declarations in procedure argument declarations so I abandoned it. -- Chris Lewis, Phone: (613) 832-0541, Domain: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca UUCP: ...!cunews!latour!ecicrl!clewis; Ferret Mailing List: ferret-request@eci386; Psroff (not Adobe Transcript) enquiries: psroff-request@eci386 or Canada 416-832-0541. Psroff 3.0 in c.s.u soon!
vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder) (06/08/91)
I saw an ad in PC Week (or was it Byte?) some months ago for a PL\I compiler for '386s. It wasn't DR or MS or IBM. -- vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder vsnyder@jato.uucp
orville@weyrich.UUCP (Orville R. Weyrich) (06/10/91)
In article <1991Jun4.073924.2610@weyrich.UUCP> orville@weyrich.UUCP (Orville R. Weyrich) writes: > >I need to obtain a PL/I compiler (close to full implementation) for any of >the three computers which I have: > > Microport Unix System V/386 > > MS-DOS > > CP/M (just about any soft-sector 5 1/4" format will do). > >I would be grateful for any recommendations as to where I can find such an >animal. > >Also, if you have one you don't need, how about letting me have it cheap? > Thanks for all the replies to my request for information on PL/I compilers. Any additions or corrections are welcome. Several persons offered me compilers, and several other persons asked for leads on how to obtain compilers. I will put these folks in touch after I get mine :-). I summarize below [shamelessly edited] replies from the following individuals: mcnc.org!dg-rtp.dg.com!cochran (Dave Cochran) emory!pecanpi!syoung (Stan Young) prodnet.la.locus.com!jfr (Jon Rosen) mailrus!umich!vela!amaranth (Paul Amaranth) racerx!ken (Ken Hardy) grian.cps.altadena.ca.us!morris (Mike Morris) software.org!cox (Guy Cox) bony1.bony.com!stevef (Steve Faiwiszewski) magrethea.matrox.com!danderso dww@math.fu-berlin.de (Debora Weber-Wulff) INFOODS.MIT.EDU!KLENSIN (John C Klensin) ihlpm.att.com!db21 (David Beyerl) shore@theory.tn.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) tpoind@skipy (Tom Poindexter) jamesp@world.std.com (james M peterson) kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder) clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) ========================= Digital Research PL/I for CP/M ======================= PL/I? On an MS-DOS or CP/M (!!!) platform with close to full implementation? Well, the beast compiler we used to use on our IBM 370 was a wee bit on the overweight side. I mean, when you stuff all the goodies from Algol, COBOL, FORTRAN and what-not in one bag, it won't exactly be petite. But lots of luck, and let us know if you find anything! [Do you mean the one that would compile a blank card, produce a bunch of error messages like "missing BEGIN -- generated", etc. to produce an executable load module that occupied quite a few K of memory and which had the same effect as IEFBR14? :-)] Remember that long ago, in a place far away, FORTRAN & COBOL were compiled on cpus with 4096 words of memory (not kilobytes or megabytes, just 4,096). Digital Research Inc. sold a PL/1G compiler for CP/M. "G" was supposed to be a relatively machine independent subset of fully bloated IBM PL/1. Supposedly a semi-international standard. PL/1 G was available on a lot of different platforms. I've got a copy of Digital Research's PL/I. This is a Subset G implementation, under CP/M. The package includes DR's RMAC (a fancy macro assembler), librarian, linker, other utilities, and the documentation. I also have DR's ISAM package (don't recall the name at the moment, but it was a nice little package for CP/M). I did have experience with the CP/M one. If I remember correctly (which may not be the case) Digital Research produced that one. It was not even a G subset and had enough limitations to drive you crazy. They ported it to MS-DOS without enhancements. I haven't heard anything about it for years. If that is all you can find, you have my sympathy. I did some programming projects with it at an old job many years ago. I don't know how complete you need, but it filled my bill. I don't know about the fate of PLI-80, but PLI-86 was sold to another company whose name I don't recall. It's supported pretty lousily. If you can get your hands on PLI-80, it might be sufficient for MS-DOS, using one of the commercial CPM/Z80 emulators (there are both hardware as well as software packages). It was very limited: 64K for code & 64K data on 8086, and of course 64k for CP/M-80. The code produced was very good though. We use it in 1985 to write a small cad package using GEM. They also had a database manager and a screen designer, which were sold as separate items. "PL/0.25" would be closer to the truth. It is also full of bugs, with the bug level increasing as one moves from CP/M-80 toward MessDOS. You can probably find someone to sell it to you, possibly even DRI. But they don't fix bugs, and the documentation stinks, and it isn't really PL/I in any of the conventional or Standard dialects. My dim recollection is that it was painfully slow and had about eleventy- five passes, but it may be what you're looking for. As I remember the Digital Research PL/I compiler was not real compatable with our VAX PL/I stuff - as in major recoding. The DR PL/I was a PL/I subset G compiler, whereas the VMS PL/I is a full implementation. PL/I was the Ada of the 1960's; enormous with every programmer using a different subset. [I think I object to Ada being compared to PL/I :-)] The DR compiler was still being sold as late as 1983. The Digital Research PL/I compiler was a rather rich subset G implementation. The G subset is far from "big" PL/I but it is quite adequate (I missed the select) for most practical things. Moreover, since PL/I is so unpopular, I found the code to be very portable, nobody wants to enhance anything. The most robust implementation was for CP/M-80, worked great on 8080, 8085, and Z80 machines, I never checked the later models. I pondered using PL/1G on my CP/M machine, then I discovered it didn't allow you to "*" array declarations in procedure argument declarations so I abandoned it. [Note -- Digital Research is still around -- I got some e-mail from someone there recently regarding another subject. I think their main product now is an MS-DOS clone. I don't know what the status of their PL/I product is]. ========================= Digital Research PL/I for MS-DOS ===================== It was distributed by Digital Research. The compiler first came out for 8080 in CP/M, then migrated to 8086 & MS-DOS. It was *quite* buggy; I don't think DR ever released any version beyond 1.0. The compiler supposedly supported PL/I ANSI Subset G. The CP/M-86 version was a hastily translated (the translate program was written in PL/I-80 and the turkeys lost the source!) and although a little wobbly, also worked rather well. When it appeared that CP/M-86 was going to lose, big time, to MS-DOS they did a quick and dirty conversion to MS-DOS 1.1 [sic] and it was the worst of the bunch. It was cantakerous and generally unreliable. I don't know which one IBM shipped, probably CP/M-86, I doubt that the DOS version could have passed even the least stringent acceptance tests. I can't guarantee the linker will work under 3.x or up since I have never tested it. I used it once under MS-DOS 2.x. ========================= Language Processors, Inc. ============================ Check with a company called Language Processors, Inc., in Massachusetts. I THINK that they are mostly Unix-based, but they may have MS-DOS compilers as well. Data General sells their PL/I compiler on 386/ix and on DG/UX. I have no phone number, but you can write to them at: Language Processors, Inc. 959 Concord St. Framingham, MA 01701 I know of two PL/I compilers available on Unix, one is made by LPI and the other is not commercially available. The only thing I know about the LPI compiler is that it's expensive. LPI makes a putative PL/I for several U**X environments and, allegedly, for MS-DOS (running in 386 mode with extenders, if I recall). I think their prices start in the $1200 vicinity and go up rapidly, but my memory is pretty vague. The compiler is close to, but not quite conforming (if I recall) to ANSI X3.74-1981. Unfortunately, that Standard is obsolete and represented a language a little too small to get any useful work done. And LPI has traditionally been very hard to deal with. LPI makes PL/I for '386 UNIX and while I have no experience with it, the genes are good. It, like LPI's other languages, was shrunk down from "big" PL/I and was written in PL/I. Maybe their C compiler is written in C, but I'm pretty sure their others are written in PL/I. I'm a little sorry that the language fell into such ill repute, if you avoid the chrome and tail fins it's a pretty good language. I lust for its BCD arithmetic for money calculations and I still understand its structures better than C. It's certainly possible to write a bad program in PL/I but it's lots easier to write something unreadable in C. [Please -- no language wars here!!!]. If LPI did V/386 PL/I correctly, I have no reason to believe they didn't, it should be trim and compact. They've certainly got their code generator act together by now and the linker shouldn't carry along any baggage you didn't ask for. I'll also speculate that it's subset G with some extensions (select maybe? huh? Huh? :-) which should be sufficient for as much work as you'd want to do on a '386. Also, LPI (I think it was LPI, or maybe it was Greenhills) builds their compilers in PL/1, and since they have to port PL/1 first to each platform, there's likely to be a commercial version of their PL/1 for the platform you want. ========================= Other Suggestions ============================ There is an IBM-supplied compiler that runs under OS/2. I haven't been able to exercise it, but it is apparently ok. But you didn't mention OS/2 in your little list. I also don't imagine it is cheap. There are a few folks around who claim to be able to translate PL/I automatically into, e.g., C. I don't believe a word of it, but could probably dig out a list if you wanted it. There is some sort of PL/I language *interpreter* on Simtel20. Look for RUNPLI or some such. I saw an ad in PC Week (or was it Byte?) some months ago for a PL/I compiler for '386s. It wasn't DR or MS or IBM. -------------------------------------- ****************************** Orville R. Weyrich, Jr., Ph.D. Certified Systems Professional Internet: orville%weyrich@uunet.uu.net Weyrich Computer Consulting Voice: (602) 391-0821 POB 5782, Scottsdale, AZ 85261 Fax: (602) 391-0023 (Yes! I'm available) -------------------------------------- ******************************
stinson@tifsim.pac.sc.ti.com (Jim Stinson) (06/10/91)
Digital Research's PL/I compiler was very screwed up. After buying the compiler
for $600 - $500, and sending in the registration form, they set a list of about
50 or more bugs with it. Things like A = A * B where A and B were floating
point numbers messed up the stack and you program would eventually dump.
X = 105331 where X is an integer, would assign 15331, that is, the comiler
would drop 0's from integer constants from time to time. There were others,
I don't remember them all, I just could not believe some one would sell a
compiler for so much knowing it did not work and wouldn't give refunds.
Jim Stinson stinson@tifsim.csc.ti.com, @tifsim.pac.sc.ti.comeversole@acae037.cadence.com (Richard Eversole; x6239) (06/10/91)
As of 1988 the VAX VMS PL/I compiler was not a full implementation of the
language as defined by IBM.
I had a 65,000 line PL/I program for the IBM 3090 that required
15,000 lines of changes just to get it to compile under VAX PL/I.
Unfortunately, the program also required a CODASYL compliant database
which was not available for the VAX at our site at that time.
I do not remember the exact problems but they were subtle uses of
the language.
The only company I'm aware of that has a PL/I compiler that may be
of any value is LPI (I do not have the address). Unfortunately, I
think their compilers only run under UNIX and maybe a handful of
other operating systems (But not MESSDOS).
DR's PL/I compiler is garbage. All "Subset G" PL/I compilers are going
to be worthless if you are transferring from an IBM mainframe compiler.
--
=====================================================================
eversole@cadence.com
Live long and prosper !barton@holston.UUCP (Barton A. Fisk) (06/11/91)
In article <60LR3ND@math.fu-berlin.de> dww@math.fu-berlin.de (Debora Weber-Wulff) writes: >orville@weyrich.UUCP (Orville R. Weyrich) writes: >> >>I need to obtain a PL/I compiler (close to full implementation) for any of >> >> Microport Unix System V/386 >> MS-DOS >> CP/M (just about any soft-sector 5 1/4" format will do). > >PL/I? On an MS-DOS or CP/M (!!!) platform with close to full >in one bag, it won't exactly be petite. But lots of luck, and let >us know if you find anything! LPI just announced PL/I for RS6000, SPARC, M88000, i386/486 systems running UNIX as well as 386/486 running DOS. The sheet says it's an ANSI PL/I X3.74 1981 General Purpose subset and includes extensions for compatibility with PL/I dialects for IBM mainframes, and DEC VAX. Never used it myself, but looks like what you're looking for LPI's number is 1-800-833-3678. I have no affiliation with them just a satisfied user. (of another one of their products) -- uucp: holston!barton pseudo: barton@holston.UUCP
alexande@borland.com (Mark Alexander) (06/11/91)
DRI started abandoning their language products around the time I joined the company 7 years ago. If you called them now and asked about PL/I, they probably wouldn't know what you were talking about.
bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (06/11/91)
I have been reading this thread with considerable interest because I have used each of the Digital Research PL/I implementations with varying degrees of success. DRI has a couple of grand of my shekels, bought 'em all, and I share some of Jim's opinions but not all of them. stinson@tifsim.pac.sc.ti.com (Jim Stinson) writes: > >Digital Research's PL/I compiler was very screwed up. After buying the compiler >for $600 - $500, and sending in the registration form, they set a list of about This could very well be the case with the DOS version, it was a hastily converted derivative of the CP/M-86 version which was a hastily translated derivative of the CP/M-80 version. I found PL/I-80 to be a very reliable and robust compiler that was able to do a lot of nifty things on an 8 bit machine. Even as we phosphor I have an application running on an ancient IMSAI in PL/I-80, I installed it in October 1984 and there has never been so much as a whimper out of it. It's heavily overlaid but when you've only got 64K for the OS and everyone on earth, it's to PL/I-80's credit that it works as well as it does and overlays as well as it does. >50 or more bugs with it. Things like A = A * B where A and B were floating >point numbers messed up the stack and you program would eventually dump. >X = 105331 where X is an integer, would assign 15331, that is, the comiler >would drop 0's from integer constants from time to time. There were others, >I don't remember them all, I just could not believe some one would sell a >compiler for so much knowing it did not work and wouldn't give refunds. > > Jim Stinson stinson@tifsim.csc.ti.com, @tifsim.pac.sc.ti.com I share Jim's feelings about the later "releases". DRI just grabbed a can of paint and tried to paint the horse and call it a zebra. What was especially irritating was (after paying them for "Professional Programmer Support") to report a lethal bug and getting a letter back saying that the problem was indeed reproducible but the product was "mature and no longer in need of support". The one that comes to mind in the DOS world was when you went to the second level overlay having PL/I get it's FCB's crossed and display your Access Manager index files as screens and use you Display Manager files as AM indicies... -- Bill Kennedy internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM or ssbn!bill@attmail.COM uucp {att,cs.utexas.edu,pyramid!daver}!ssbn.wlk.com!bill
car@trux.UUCP (Chris Rende) (06/12/91)
From article <60LR3ND@math.fu-berlin.de>, by dww@math.fu-berlin.de (Debora Weber-Wulff): > > PL/I? On an MS-DOS or CP/M (!!!) platform with close to full > implementation? > > email: weberwu@inf.fu-berlin.de, dww@math.fu-berlin.de Actually, "Control Program for Microcomputers" (CP/M) was created to serve as an O/S base for "Programming Language for Microcomputers" (PL/M). [ Where PL/M is a subset of PL/I - not "close to full implementation" ]. However, CP/M became popular in its own right as a stand-alone operating system. So the thought of running PL/M on CP/M isn't as far fetched as one would think. car. -- Christopher A. Rende Central Cartage (Nixdorf/Pyramid/SysVR2/BSD4.3) uunet!edsews!rphroy!trux!car Multics,DTSS,Unix,Shortwave,Scanners,UnixPC/3B1 car@trux.mi.org Minix 1.2,PC/XT,Mac+,TRS-80 Model I,1802 ELF trux!ramecs!car "I don't ever remember forgetting anything." - Chris Rende