Xref: utzoo comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:3208 comp.sys.ibm.pc:29410 comp.os.cpm:2459
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mcnc!rti!bcw
From: bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.os.cpm
Subject: Re: Wanted: PL/M-80 compiler
Summary: DRI is out of language business
Message-ID: <2985@rti.UUCP>
Date: 27 May 89 02:36:04 GMT
References: <808FYS-EH@FINTUVM> <26@oink.UUCP> <2593@lethe.UUCP>
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC
Lines: 27

In article <2593@lethe.UUCP>, gerry@lethe.UUCP (Gerry) writes:
> 
> As memeory serves Digital Research used PL/M to develop CP/Ms and they offered
> their version on a number of platforms.  Later they even came out with PL/1
> (subset G) on CP/M machines and PCs.  With this background they're certainly
> worth querying.

DRI is still in business, but they are now into things like GEM and
Concurrent DOS.  They haven't been in the language business for some
time - I'm not even sure that they will sell you anything;  it will
certainly not have been worked on in several years ...

PL/M is related to PL/I only in some of the low-level syntax.  The
high-level syntax and the semantics are quite different.  I'm not
sure that DRI ever marketed a PL/M compiler, though Gary Kildall did
write the first Intel PL/M compiler and used the language quite a bit
in CP/M.

The PL/I compiler that DRI had for the 8080 and 8086 was a far cry from
a Subset G PL/I compiler- it was more like Fortran with semicolens and
structures (RECORDs for you Pascal types).  It was also full of
horrible bugs and only supported the small model.  I have had the
misfortune to have to convert a significant amount of code from real
Subset G compilers to the DRI PL/I compiler and take my word for it,
you don't want it if you can possibly avoid it.

						Bruce C. Wright