M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> John W. Kennedy wrote:
>> Rich Morin wrote:
>>> At 1:56 PM +0900 10/11/06, Hal Fulton wrote:
>>>> And let's not mention COBOL.
>>> Although COBOL is not my favorite tool, I don't know of
>>> any arguably superior replacements for it (all things
>>> considered) in the environments where it is used.
>> PL/I and Ada '95. 
> 
> PL/I was intended to replace both Fortran and COBOL. In fact it did
> neither. Is PL/I even still in use today?

Yes.

> I don't recall seeing an open
> source PL/I compiler.

There have been some efforts to genericize the old (F) compiler (though 
it was written in assembler), which IBM published freely back in the 
60's, when virtually all software was more or less open source, and 
someone else is working on a gcc-based PL/I compiler right now. See 
comp.lang.pl1. In any case, PL/I is still very much available on IBM 
mainframes -- in fact, a brand-new compiler just came out a few years ago.

The bad news is that it still lacks OO.

> Ada, on the other hand, was intended to be a language for managing large
> projects. I think it was a beautiful design, as far as I know it is
> still in use today, and there is in fact an open source compiler.

Ada 2005 is out.

Many features of Ada, by the way, were designed with the philosophy, 
"PL/I had a good idea, but got it wrong; let's see if we can do better."

-- 
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
   -- Charles Williams.  "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"