Where should the type information be 161

Couldn't have influence if the first exposure was 1978.

I don't remember it ever shipping. PL-I never got into the software notebooks so I doubt it did.

A non-paper manual is useless to me for learning. I need a hardcopy manual, preferably written in textbook format, to learn a language in three minutes or less.

So far, the snippets I've seen on the screen (I know they were outre constructs) were not "intuitive". Given a page of code with no reference manual, I should be able to figure out some of the constructs. So far, PL-I's design doesn't help.

This make me think that a special kind of thinking pattern is needed to "think" in PL-I. Yep, we're back to that compiler-thinking and OS-thinking categories I have.

Now, the fact that I can't figure out the basic construct rules of PL-I should give you at hint at why it's not more "popular".

Compartmentalizing functionality into their logical divisions was almost as automatic as breathing at DEC. There is an advantage to having cross-coders in all development projects. Stopping this cross-pollination may have been the initial snowball. PDP-10 people had the ability to say no to Bell and Cutler and make it stick. hmmm....I wonder if mainframes attracted people who couldn't be cowed, by default?

BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.