Part 36 - Jul 28 2004

Old messages from osFree mailing list hosted by Yahoo!
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:23 am
firstname: osFree
lastname: admin

Re: [osFree] Methodology

Post by admin » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:41 am

#1068 Re: [osFree] Methodology
Expand Messages

Stephan van Loendersloot
Jul 30, 2004
Carl wrote:

> >
> Is there a freeware/shareware/demo PL/I compiler for OS/2 that I could
> download? I've not heard of PL/I before & am curious to have a look.
>
> Carl

Have a look at the files in the URL below:

ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/ps/products/pli/demos/

-------- <README.1ST> --------

DEMO/EVALUATION COPIES:

OS/2: Download either PLIOS2TB.ZIP or
PLIOSATB.ZIP and PLIOSBTB.ZIP

Windows: Download PLIWINTB.ZIP

-------- </README.1ST> --------


Enjoy.

--Stephan.

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:23 am
firstname: osFree
lastname: admin

Re: [osFree] Methodology

Post by admin » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:42 am

#1069 Re: [osFree] Methodology
Expand Messages

Lynn H. Maxson
Jul 30, 2004
I want to thank Stephan van Loendersloot for his response,
else I would probably have answered "no" to Carl inquiry on
the availability of a PL/I compiler. I have downloaded both
OS/2 entries just to see what they are and what possible time
limits exist on them.

First off, the zip file plios2tb.zip contains the last version of
VisualAge for OS/2 PL/I with the last fixpak (ptf). It don't
hardly get more powerful than that.<g> You get 60 days
usage. However, IBM does not offer any means of buying this
product nor does it offer any OS/2 version for sale. While my
version does not have a time limit and thus I am in no danger,
I do get somewhat weary (along with others who know PL/I)
of getting someone excited and then have no means of
providing a usable version to maintain that excitement.

I know of no open source effort far enough along to give you
a real taste of the language. That's part of the reason I'm
developing a tool for PL/E which includes PL/I as a proper
subset. In fact I'm writing it in PL/I just to get to the first
version of PL/E.

To understand something of the tool I'm developing the same
download contains the LPEX editor. This editor is in the class
of "smart" editors in that it performs syntax checking for a
host of program languages including C, Cobol, Rexx, and PL/I
among others. My starting point is to build a replacement
editor that does syntax checking, semantic analysis, and the
two-stage proof engine of logic programming.

That engine will work on a third-generation language like PL/I
or C, accepting any existing PL/I or C program to maintain
backward compatibility while allowing language extensions
more in tune with fourth generation, declarative languages
like assertion (as well as assignment) statements, named and
unnamed code segments, global source organization, and
multiple programs on input.

Now Frank Griffin doesn't seem to appreciate what it means to
input multiple program source in a single unit of work. He
doesn't seem to appreciate what making a change to one or
more specifications that cross program boundaries means in
terms of synchronizing systemwide changes in a single unit of
work and what that means in terms of productivity. It's not
offered by any existing product. Yet it's inherently permitted
by all of them.

You can extend it to persistent data variables and the rules
which apply to their processing. Only in a source-only,
mulitple program, multiple application system environment can
you change specifications, attributes of data variables, and
data rules can you guarantee the synchronization of all the
changes across all the modules system-wide.

I only have a fixation on it due to, one, it's the only means
possible of achieving it, and, two, what it means in terms of
individual productivity.

So download plios2tb.zip and enjoy...at least for 60 days, when
I guess you can unzip it again. You'll throw rocks at C and
C++.

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:23 am
firstname: osFree
lastname: admin

Re: [osFree] Methodology

Post by admin » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:43 am

#1070 Re: [osFree] Methodology
Expand Messages

Robert Kuropkat
Jul 30, 2004
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*

Looks like an attempt to create one:
http://home.nycap.rr.com/pflass/status.htm

looks like copies of old disketts:
http://www.computercraft.com/docs/ibmbbscs.html

Robert Kuropkat



Stephan van Loendersloot wrote:

Hide message history
>*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
>Carl wrote:
>
>
>
>>Is there a freeware/shareware/demo PL/I compiler for OS/2 that I could
>>download? I've not heard of PL/I before & am curious to have a look.
>>
>>Carl
>>
>>
>
>Have a look at the files in the URL below:
>
>ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/ps/products/pli/demos/
>
>-------- <README.1ST> --------
>
> DEMO/EVALUATION COPIES:
>
>OS/2: Download either PLIOS2TB.ZIP or
> PLIOSATB.ZIP and PLIOSBTB.ZIP
>
>Windows: Download PLIWINTB.ZIP
>
>-------- </README.1ST> --------
>
>
>Enjoy.
>
> --Stephan.
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:23 am
firstname: osFree
lastname: admin

Re: Project Definition

Post by admin » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:44 am

#1071 Re: Project Definition
Expand Messages

Daniel Lee Kruse
Jul 31, 2004

Hide message history
--- In osFree@yahoogroups.com, "Lynn H. Maxson" <lmaxson@p...> wrote:
[snip]
>
> Well, Frank Griffin and I argued on opposite sides of this on
> the FreeOS mailing list. He favored the layered approach;I,
> the uK. He favored concurrent execution with OS/2 as layer
> over a LInux kernel. I favored their concurrent execution
> running side-by-side, i.e. multiple OS personalities on a uK
> base. In that manner you could include Windows, BeOS, and
> others.

From the little that I've read of uKs, I think I prefer them over the
layered approach. All I do know, as long as it matches/exceeds the
performance of the current OS/2 kernel, I'll be happy. I have heard
that OS/2's thread scheduler is better than Linux's, at least at the
2.4 level. I haven't heard anything on the 2.6 level.

>
[snip]
>
> Regardless of whether you prefer a layered approach of a
> guest OS/2 replacement on a host Linux or a layered approach
> of an OS/2 replacement personality on a uK, you still have to
> define it to the detail that allows layering it on either. The
> only difference lies in what you have to know intimately,
> Linux or uK, to complete the detailed picture.

True.

>
> Now I really don't care what specification language used here,
> whether or not it differs from mine. If you choose to leave
> them "as is" in C, it has no bearing on my translating them into
> PL/E. The only real difference is that you will have two
> source forms, code and text, while I will have one: code. Thus
> I will only have one form to maintain, while you will have two
> to keep in sync.
>
> Now I started my thread on "Programming" give
> non-programmers an insight into the common features of an
> OS/2 API. Among those common features with few exceptions
> the return and parameter variables are all full words. As such
> they either contain an address or a signed or unsigned integer.
> Three possible data types: pointer, fixed bin (31) signed, fixed
> bin (32) unsigned. IMHO these have a clarity that the
> multitude of "extended" data types, which in fact introduce
> no real "new" data types, do not have.
>
> Until recently you could not say "pointer" in C because it did
> not exist as a separate data type. You still cannot say 'fixed
> bin (31) signed or (32) unsigned'. Instead the C advocates
> created extended data types by giving different names to the
> same underlying data type, relying on a macro language to
> resolve the extended name to the basic type, and
> incorporating the actual data type as a lower-case prefix in a
> variable name. Personally that seems like a hell of a lot of
> unnecessary extra work to define a 32-bit word in a language
> which has no means to operate on bits: no native bit string
> data types. Of course, someone will still insist that C more
> closely represent machine architecture even if it can't
> represent the one data type, the bit, which composes all the
> others.

And as I'm learning C better, the above mentioned is driving me up the
wall. Did somebody get bored so they need to "extend" the data types?
I'm so glad Java doesn't have the macros or typedefs.

>
> So we already have the C form of the OS/2 APIs published in
> IBM (and others') manuals as well as source code libraries.
> Instead of all these manuals we need only one, an open
> source one free of copyright restrictions, to call our own.
> What does it hurt to support two forms, a C form and a PL/E
> form? If at the end of the detailed design, the detailed
> algorithmic descriptions, you don't have a PL/E tool, you still
> have the uptodate C tools to use.

I don't see a problem in supporting a C and a PL/E form of
documentation. Actually, the specification language tool you keep
referring to could handle this.

>
[snip]
Daniel Lee Kruse

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:23 am
firstname: osFree
lastname: admin

Re: Methodology

Post by admin » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:46 am

#1072 Re: Methodology
Expand Messages

Daniel Lee Kruse
Jul 31, 2004

Hide message history
--- In osFree@yahoogroups.com, "Lynn H. Maxson" <lmaxson@p...> wrote:
[snip]
>
> I know of no open source effort far enough along to give you
> a real taste of the language. That's part of the reason I'm
> developing a tool for PL/E which includes PL/I as a proper
> subset. In fact I'm writing it in PL/I just to get to the first
> version of PL/E.

How far along is this work?

>
[snip]
>
Daniel Lee Kruse

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:23 am
firstname: osFree
lastname: admin

Re: [osFree] Re: Methodology

Post by admin » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:47 am

#1073 Re: [osFree] Re: Methodology
Expand Messages

Lynn H. Maxson
Jul 31, 2004
Daniel Lee Kruse asks: "How far along is this work?"

I don't want to mislead anyone. Initially I had no intention of
writing anything. As an OS/2 user quite content with its
existing capabilities and the applications available I offered a
solution to those not happy with either. I have another life, in
fact several active ones. Somehow giving them up to engage
in a massive effort to prove a point spoke to an ego I didn't
have.

I have always felt that if the OS/2 community wanted it that it
should produce it on its own. I, in fact, as part of the original
Warpicity Proposal provided for the means for the community
to finance it. I would be happy as a member of that
community to pay my share, my annual dues of $20/year.

When you propose an open source project that involves a
universal specification language, that means it can specify
itself as well as anything else. That means you have a set of
specifications which define the language in that language.
Then you write a tool using that language to process source
written in that language. Before you make the tool, prove
the point(s), and give it away for free, considering the
commitment you have to make and how else you could have
spent that time I think it reasonable to ask yourself "Why?".

Now I have received some offers of assistance from friends
locally who have a somewhat better understanding and
appreciation. They like me have other lives as well. We need
to ask ourselves, "Why?".

The general answer seems to be, "Why not?". Thus I have
begun to acquire the necessary skills in PM programming and
the writing of the editor, the linchpin from which everything
else depends. Now my progress is little and far between.

So you could say I have completed design and initiated
construction.

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:23 am
firstname: osFree
lastname: admin

Re: [osFree] Re: Methodology

Post by admin » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:48 am

#1074 Re: [osFree] Re: Methodology
Expand Messages

Alan Duval
Jul 31, 2004

>I have always felt that if the OS/2 community wanted it that it
>should produce it on its own. I, in fact, as part of the original
>Warpicity Proposal provided for the means for the community
>to finance it. I would be happy as a member of that
>community to pay my share, my annual dues of $20/year.
>

I would also be quite happy to contribute. Is there a fund to contribute to?

Alan Duval

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:23 am
firstname: osFree
lastname: admin

Re: [osFree] Methodology

Post by admin » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:49 am

#1075 Re: [osFree] Methodology
Expand Messages

Carl
Aug 1, 2004
Stephan van Loendersloot wrote:

>Carl wrote:
>
>
>
>>Is there a freeware/shareware/demo PL/I compiler for OS/2 that I could
>>download? I've not heard of PL/I before & am curious to have a look.
>>
>>Carl
>>
>>
>
>Have a look at the files in the URL below:
>
>ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/ps/products/pli/demos/
>
>

Brilliant! Thank you. No why can't IBM make things like that easier to
find? Or perhaps I'm not making the most for their search engine....

After installing it, I received an error message when PMSHELL tried to
load & my PC wouldn't boot to the desktop. I managed to sort it out, so
for anyone else wanting to install the PL/I demo for OS/2, just edit
CONFIG.SYS and where PL/I places itself at the begining of PATH &
LIBPATH, just cut & paste it to the end of those lines.

Now I have 60 days to find out what PL/I is all about, and maybe even
learn how to use it :-)

Carl.

--


Carl.

In order to help prevent the spreading of email viruses and
the invasion of privacy, I would appreciate it if you no not
store any of my information in any of the following computer
programs: Microsoft Outlook; Microsoft Outlook Express; Plaxo;
and any others that can be accessed from outside your premises.

For a decent operating system, see:
www.ecomstation.com* or www.linspire.com**

*Not recommended for avid virus and/or spyware collectors.
**See *

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:23 am
firstname: osFree
lastname: admin

Re: [osFree] Methodology

Post by admin » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:51 am

#1076 Re: [osFree] Methodology
Expand Messages

Carl
Aug 1, 2004
Robert Kuropkat wrote:

>*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
>
>Looks like an attempt to create one:
>http://home.nycap.rr.com/pflass/status.htm
>
>

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on the progress.

>looks like copies of old disketts:
>http://www.computercraft.com/docs/ibmbbscs.html
>
>

Must be an old site. Most of the links point to xoom.com & are broken.

>
>
>

--


Carl.

In order to help prevent the spreading of email viruses and
the invasion of privacy, I would appreciate it if you no not
store any of my information in any of the following computer
programs: Microsoft Outlook; Microsoft Outlook Express; Plaxo;
and any others that can be accessed from outside your premises.

For a decent operating system, see:
www.ecomstation.com* or www.linspire.com**

*Not recommended for avid virus and/or spyware collectors.
**See *

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:23 am
firstname: osFree
lastname: admin

Re: [osFree] Methodology

Post by admin » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:52 am

#1077 Re: [osFree] Methodology
Expand Messages

Carl
Aug 2, 2004
Lynn H. Maxson wrote:

>First off, the zip file plios2tb.zip contains the last version of
>VisualAge for OS/2 PL/I with the last fixpak (ptf). It don't
>hardly get more powerful than that.<g> You get 60 days
>usage. However, IBM does not offer any means of buying this
>product nor does it offer any OS/2 version for sale. While my
>version does not have a time limit and thus I am in no danger,
>I do get somewhat weary (along with others who know PL/I)
>of getting someone excited and then have no means of
>providing a usable version to maintain that excitement.
>
>

I have emailed IBM to ask for a price a few days ago & no response yet...
The readme mentioned that some of the libraries are missing in the demo
version, as well as the time limit. I don't know which ones, so not sure
how much this limits the demo version.

>I know of no open source effort far enough along to give you
>a real taste of the language. That's part of the reason I'm
>developing a tool for PL/E which includes PL/I as a proper
>subset. In fact I'm writing it in PL/I just to get to the first
>version of PL/E.
>
>

Have you seen http://home.nycap.rr.com/pflass/status.htm ? Isn't that an
open source version of PL/I for OS/2? That's what I understood from my
limited knowledge of the subject.

>So download plios2tb.zip and enjoy...at least for 60 days, when
>I guess you can unzip it again. You'll throw rocks at C and
>C++.
>
>

I haven't read the license yet, but I assume that I won't be able to
distribute any programs I write with the demo version. Maybe a copy will
come up on Ebay one day. I have very little experience with C or C++.
I've only recently decided to try it out because it seems to be what
most programmers use and OpenWatcom is freely available. My exerience
has been mainly with Rexx & I used to use QuickBasic in the days of DOS,
Win 3 & OS/2 2. I've not touched much on GUI programming, apart from
MAID for OS/2, because most programs I have written are just tools that
help me automate a few things and really don't need a GUI. It appears to
me that it is a lot more work to write a program in C or C++ (more lines
of code & trying to fathom out what to include, etc.) so I would be a
lot more interested in using a language that works similar to Basic,
where most of the dirty work is done for me & I can just get on with
writing my code. I got the impression that PL/I works like that. I will
see how it goes, & hope a non-demo version is still available for
purchase somewhere if I decide I like it.

--


Carl.

In order to help prevent the spreading of email viruses and
the invasion of privacy, I would appreciate it if you no not
store any of my information in any of the following computer
programs: Microsoft Outlook; Microsoft Outlook Express; Plaxo;
and any others that can be accessed from outside your premises.

For a decent operating system, see:
www.ecomstation.com* or www.linspire.com**

*Not recommended for avid virus and/or spyware collectors.
**See *

Post Reply