Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!n8emr!uncle!oink!jep
From: jep@oink.UUCP (James E. Prior)
Newsgroups: comp.os.cpm
Subject: Re: Digital Research 'PL/I' and PL/M
Message-ID: <32@oink.UUCP>
Date: 23 May 89 17:47:03 GMT
References: <890522142425.00001ECA072@INFOODS.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: jep@oink.UUCP (James E. Prior)
Organization: Random Prime Research Institute  Columbus, Ohio
Lines: 27

In article <890522142425.00001ECA072@INFOODS.MIT.EDU> KLENSIN@INFOODS.MIT.EDU (John C Klensin) writes:
... regarding PL/M vs. PL/I ...

>  (2) PL/M is very similar to PL/I in several respects, but not enough 
>to make translation a worthwhile enterprise in most cases.

I agree.  Here are my own thoughts comparing them.

PL/M (especially PL/M-51 that I've busted my arse on) is an itty bitty
subset of PL/I.  

PL/I is a Cadillac of languages, with power seats with
N degrees of freedom, remote control mirrors, cigarette lighters for 
everyone, automatice antenna, curb feelers, power steering, brakes,
door locks, windows, sunroof, etc...  It is a very rich language offering
damn near all the features ever conceived.

PL/M is a two cycle trail bike with no instrumentation, no gas filter,
no air filter, and no muffler.  It was to be quick and agile for
microcontroller applications where time is a real concern (real time).  
It has the bare minimum of statements, expressions, and data types.  
It succeeds at being a step above assembler, but not much.  

PL/I and PL/M have the same _general_ structure and look, but that's
about it.   They both have their place.  
-- 
Jim Prior    jep@oink    osu-cis!n8emr!oink!jep    N8KSM