On Sun, 2025-02-16 at 21:51 +0000, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > On 2/16/25 11:54, Van Snyder via cctalk wrote: > > On Sun, 2025-02-16 at 09:32 -0500, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > > > A lot of early "ALGOL" compilers did major subsetting because it > > > was > > > considered to hard to do the real language. > > > > IBM invented PL/1. IBM (or at least IBM Canada) wrote their > > excellent > > Fortran compilers in a subset of PL/1 called PLIX, that is PL.9. I > > guess a full language was too hard even for the inventors of the > > language. At committee meetings I would pester the IBM delegate > > "When > > are you going to make your compiler available for Linux on Intel?" > > His > > answer was always NEVER! > > A co-worker from long ago who was part of the IBM COMTRAN project > once > told me that the IBM PL/I group was the biggest bunch of misfits that > had ever been assembled. I won't go any further on that, because I'd > be > engaging in gossip.
I guess Honeywell got enough PL/1 working to write most of Multics in it. Has anybody gotten Multics going on a PC?
