26 Dec
2019
26 Dec
'19
9:57 p.m.
On 12/26/2019 3:37 PM, Larry McVoy wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 07:28:27AM +1000, David Arnold
wrote:
PL.8 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL/8) springs to mind. I can't say
that it was the right or wrong subset of PL/I. I do know that I wrote a
major simulation environment in PL/I while avoiding much of PL/I. I
never used PL.8 myself, just learned it enough to write a PL.8 to C
conversion tool that some AIX folks found useful.
Though the Wikipedia page makes PL.8 sound successful, it is hard to
imagine that more than a small minority of folks chose PL.8 over PL/I.
Even assuming PL.8 was the right subset, it would have struggled to
overcome entrenched PL/I.
C++ is several different languages in one
compiler.
Bingo, well said. I find kitchen sink languages like that awful.
It's not what you put in, it's what you don't let in.
As you said, it takes a lot of discipline to use the right subset
which makes you wonder why there isn't a language that is the right
subset.