RE: PL/I on V4R1?

[Don <dr2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> (usages) and REWROTE the feature in PL/I in 5.1. The performance of the C
> programs was horrible compared to what they could do in PL/I. I'm not saying
> that PL/I is faster than C just reporting what happened.

Well, as everyone knows, the performance isn't really in the SOURCE it's
in the OBJECT!  That means the efficiency, or lack there of, is a COMPILER
DESIGN issue...always has been...always will be...  Which brings me back
to the real original LACK OF A NEED for C....or Pascal...Both of which
came WELL AFTER PL/I....  Why do we keep allowing the wheel to be
reinvented all the time?    

Sorry, I'm still a PL/I'er at heart...:)  It's been a while, but it's
still a damn good language/compiler.

Don in DC metro...

> 
> 

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---