Replying to a message of Mike Luther to Murray Lesser:>can write extension DLL's in whatever native code language you
More interestingly, REXX is an extensible language. This means you
None of the major development tools vendors is supporting>16-bit code any more, except in their assemblers. All
PL/1(i), whatever, OS/2, Win-ugh, DOS .. and REXX, are they really suitable tools for poor Mikey?>background information to formulate the answer is up to
It's PL/I.
Only you can answer the question. How you collect
Thanks for the kind words. However, Mike should note that I am one
of the _only_ two members of this echo who admit to having an
acquaintance with PL/I. If he really needs technical advice, he should
do what I do: ask you :-).
More interestingly, REXX is an extensible language. This means you
can write extension DLL's in whatever native code language you
fancy, provided it supports _System linkage convention. There are
plenty of samples in C, and I have posted samples in PL/I and
assembler. Thus, when the base language runs out of capability or too
slowly, branch off into some native object code to do the fiddly
bits.
PL/I is also extensible :-). (Almost any compiled language and
many interpreted languages are extensible with assembled procedures.
I wrote three books in the 1980s dealing with extending various
dialects of MS BASIC compilers).
There used to be less necessity for
extending PL/I than for extending REXX, and it is much more
difficult. Extending PL/I may have become more likely for those of
us who write text-mode utilities, now that IBM has dropped the PL/I capability to make direct calls to the 16-bit OS/2 APIs.
None of the major development tools vendors is supporting
16-bit code any more, except in their assemblers. All
modern compilers produce 32-bit code exclusively. The
upshot is that DOS is dead. Indeed, there is no ISO/ANSI-
certified C++ compiler for 16-bit DOS, AFAIK. [Jonathan
might know of one.] All the 16-bit C compilers are C89 or
worse [K&R], with no C99 compilers available. As I said,
DOS is dead.
Hmmm. Is that new fashion the reason IBM dropped the ability to compile PL/I procedures calling the 16-bit bsesub.cpy OS/2 API
functions, in FP-6? Another loss to fashion?
I keep a copy of the
FP-4 version of my compiler in a different partition, just to avoid
having to "extend" PL/I with assembled procedures. Once compiled,
the calls run fine under the runtime DLLs that came with FP-6.
Only you can answer the question. How you collect
background information to formulate the answer is up to
you. But you have been given information from the two
members of this echo who have the most experience with
PL/I, and we both know/knew C too. I also know C++ quite
thoroughly. And I dabble in REXX a bit, too. ... :-)
Thanks for the kind words. However, Mike should note that I am
one of the _only_ two members of this echo who admit to having an acquaintance with PL/I.
If he really needs technical advice, he
should do what I do: ask you :-).
Sysop: | digital man |
---|---|
Location: | Riverside County, California |
Users: | 1,028 |
Nodes: | 17 (1 / 16) |
Uptime: | 183:34:34 |
Calls: | 503,707 |
Calls today: | 10 |
Files: | 158,907 |
D/L today: |
17,042 files (4,901M bytes) |
Messages: | 444,397 |
Posted today: | 3 |