X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WUGkpvUHqQqwm691OSN0nwO0YRM3pqcNWYzOaGcggJo=; b=Bur+GmPLrzqLLak/vKUiro2VHdZJXvDYoL/Sf5/ymOp2MP7GaCnoThgD3BEoqnxcBk chjwdHz7sT7xwj8zCX48Doi/4iJxBU2/IZse9UDCgraBsAyW/9rhiQqPeF5+s5dLDmq3 WixSIX2Hj1sds4+3WYocXpjk5N+qSiMDqSxuBtbyMJzRt1GUriBsA7GBaIYhIt3XJ/A0 TBbWz3+/aOpihe5FvI8gpdKVX+GCkEh9Zm2gMHLC/7Tavr58OQ7klh6Zdvh0XSFqJ8Oa 5jFuA4xNZJ3izN0vICdUAICmDYsMidgW2HPCbq6tbwrVyVlfm3/jRqDhidi1WNjwczBF bd3A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.124.164 with SMTP id mj4mr49419214lbb.3.1436197302070; Mon, 06 Jul 2015 08:41:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1435510363 DOT 682 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <20150703030409 DOT 32398 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> <20150703191532 DOT GB21182 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <20150705021010 DOT 369968038A2C AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 11:41:42 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive? From: "Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id t66Ffn9T028041 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 Precedence: bulk John, just to take things even farther off topic did you know MIT no longer uses Scheme for 6.001? (I went to Northeastern, but some of the MIT people I know are still unhappy about it) On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:40 AM, John Doty wrote: > > On Jul 4, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via 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 > > > -- Home http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ Work http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/