delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f |
X-Recipient: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
X-TCPREMOTEIP: | 207.224.51.38 |
X-Authenticated-UID: | jpd AT noqsi DOT com |
Mime-Version: | 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) |
Subject: | Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive? |
From: | John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com> |
In-Reply-To: | <CAM2RGhTRQCA5D=1XB2yELZ47nF9uu247CbJjOrJ82EJMNwPAfw@mail.gmail.com> |
Date: | Mon, 6 Jul 2015 08:40:17 -0600 |
Message-Id: | <A762D642-FE18-4EA4-9A55-EDBBB0A830F0@noqsi.com> |
References: | <1435510363 DOT 682 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <20150703030409 DOT 32398 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> <CAM2RGhSb=z35RYaJQmh-S4N73ng9WOj4ySmy_05J-7KGdBv8SA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAOP4iL3VBaS+bJhKJDk=_iuBSjDPY2-pvMdz5zPnf7A_rwD0Jw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20150703191532 DOT GB21182 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1507040542390 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv> <20150705021010 DOT 369968038A2C AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> <CAM2RGhTRQCA5D=1XB2yELZ47nF9uu247CbJjOrJ82EJMNwPAfw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> |
To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailer: | Apple Mail (2.1878.6) |
X-MIME-Autoconverted: | from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id t66EeSLn023297 |
Reply-To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
On Jul 4, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote: > Imagine if the source was written in PL/I. How much development in the > future would you expect it to get? I suspect the majority on this list lack much understanding of the reference. PL/I(F) was the fourth programming language I learned, and later I used Multics PL/I and PL/M for a variety of purposes. PL/I(F) was extremely feature-rich, and that was its downfall. There were too many subtle pitfalls the programmer had to watch out for. Innocent-looking expressions like “N/3” could do crazy things. It’s proof that the quality of the designer is not a good predictor of the quality of the product. The designers and promoters of PL/I included many of the leading computer scientists of the 1960’s. So, don’t take it to heart when somebody criticizes your software. Good ideas can lead to bad software, especially *too many* good ideas. Later dialects like PL/I(G) and PL/M were simplified, with many features removed. PL/M’s semantics were similar to C. These never achieved the the status C achieved from being the implementation language of a powerful general-purpose OS running on cost-effective hardware. Alternate history fans might ponder what computing would be like today if MSDOS had used PL/M. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ jpd AT noqsi DOT com
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |