On Sunday, 1994-09-11  Chris Freyer wrote to Jacob Warner about "Pl/I"
as follows:

CF> Excuse my butting in Jacob.  I'm curious about PL/1.  I was 
CF> thinking about it just
CF> the other day as I was doing something in REXX when it hit me...
CF> REXX is a  procedures language, PL/1 is a procedures language,  is
CF> there a connection?

Hi Chris,

Since this is an open forum, I shall butt in too. Firstly, the name
PL/I is for Programming Language number 1, not Procedures Language. It
is compiled like COBOL, C/C++ and FORTRAN, not interpreted like REXX.
The term "Procedures Language" is rather new (the traditional
classifications are assembler language, compiler language and
interpreted language) and has no real meaning.

Secondly, there is a strong syntactic resemblance between REXX and
PL/I. This is because Mike Cowlishaw, the original developer of REXX,
is also a PL/I programmer - as were virtually all the other technical
staff at IBM Hursley Park labs. in those days.

As a result of this syntactic resemblance, those who like REXX but
want the speed of C (or even a shade quicker) often find PL/I to be
just their cup of tea. I have enjoyed programming in this language and
watching it develop for over 20 years now. The current OS/2
implementation makes the mainframe implementation I used all those
years ago seem pretty tepid.

[And to all those lurkers who might be tempted to flame me for my
heresy: I *do* own a copy of C Set ++; it is a fine compiler, but I
prefer PL/I because I know *both* languages quite intimately. So,
please, keep Peter F. happy and not start debating again.]

Regards

Dave

 * KWQ/2 1.2g * If Q were castrated, would he become O?

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb