Editing PL/I (section)

===Programmer issues===
Many programmers were slow to move from [[COBOL]] or [[Fortran]] due to a perceived complexity of the language and immaturity of the PL/I F compiler. Programmers were sharply divided into scientific programmers (who used Fortran) and business programmers (who used COBOL), with significant tension and even dislike between the groups. PL/I syntax borrowed from both COBOL and Fortran [[Syntax (programming languages|syntax]]. So instead of noticing features that would make their job easier, Fortran programmers of the time noticed COBOL syntax and had the opinion that it was a business language, while COBOL programmers noticed Fortran syntax and looked upon it as a scientific language.

Both COBOL and Fortran programmers viewed it as a "bigger" version of their own language, and both were somewhat intimidated by the language and disinclined to adopt it. Another factor was ''pseudo''-similarities to COBOL, Fortran, and ALGOL. These were PL/I elements that looked similar to one of those languages, but worked differently in PL/I. Such frustrations left many experienced programmers with a jaundiced view of PL/I, and often an active dislike for the language. An early UNIX [[fortune (Unix)|fortune]] file contained the following tongue-in-cheek description of the language:{{Citation needed|date=October 2022}}

<blockquote>Speaking as someone who has delved into the intricacies of PL/I, I am sure that only Real Men could have written such a machine-hogging, cycle-grabbing, all-encompassing monster. Allocate an array and free the middle third?  Sure!  Why not?  Multiply a character string times a bit string and assign the result to a float decimal?  Go ahead!  Free a controlled variable procedure parameter and reallocate it before passing it back?  Overlay three different types of variable on the same memory location?  Anything you say!  Write a recursive macro?  Well, no, but Real Men use rescan. How could a language so obviously designed and written by Real Men not be intended for Real Man use?</blockquote>

On the positive side, full support for [[pointer (computer programming)|pointer]]s to all data types (including pointers to structures), [[recursion]], [[Computer multitasking|multitasking]], string handling, and extensive built-in [[function (computer science)|function]]s meant PL/I was indeed quite a leap forward compared to the programming languages of its time. However, these were not enough to persuade a majority of programmers or shops to switch to PL/I.

The PL/I F compiler's compile time [[preprocessor]] was unusual (outside the [[Lisp programming language|Lisp]] world<ref>{{cite magazine |last1=Hart |first1=Timothy P. |date=October 1963 |title=MACRO Definitions for LISP |magazine=Artificial Intelligence Memos |number=57 |hdl=1721.1/6111 |hdl-access=free}}</ref>) in using its target language's syntax and semantics (''e.g.'' as compared to the [[C preprocessor]]'s "#" directives).