PLANIT(ID:296/pla013)Umich/SDC CAI languagefor Programming LANguage for Interaction and Teaching. CAI language University of Michigan and Systems Development Corporation, Santa Monica, California Related languages
References: in [AFIPS] Proceedings of the 1967 Fall Joint Computer Conference FJCC 31 view details in Datamation 14(09) September 1968 view details in Datamation 14(09) September 1968 view details in Datamation 14(09) September 1968 view details in Datamation 14(09) September 1968 view details in Datamation 14(09) September 1968 view details The decision frame and calculation mode in PLANIT make it suitable for programming conversation in a less constrained mode. in Morrell, A. J. H. (Ed.): Information Processing 68, Proceedings of IFIP Congress 1968, Edinburgh, UK, 5-10 August 1968 view details in Morrell, A. J. H. (Ed.): Information Processing 68, Proceedings of IFIP Congress 1968, Edinburgh, UK, 5-10 August 1968 view details Kanner warns, the future use of computer-assisted instruction must be based on the possession of advantages economic. administrative, and learning, which these other existing methods do not have." It could be that improvement in hardware cost would give CAI an economic advantage before today's primitive systems evolved sufficiently. This would saddle us with low-cost CAI frozen into undesirable forms. Rogers details many of the problems addicting CAI today. including: 1) danger of educators being swamped by information; 2) limitations upon the kinds of materials which can be presented; 3) limitations on student responses; and 4) lack of quality course material caused by shortage of qualified people to produce them and by the tortuous process of production. He does not mention other problems such as the rigidity in presentation which often makes users of CAI uncomfortable, or the excessive identification of CAI with programmed instruction and related approaches, or the sometimes encountered assumption that there is an ideal learning sequence. In an attempt to influence favorably future work in CAI, Rogers has given five suggestions for future developments (see page 33.) Zinn produces a limited historical review of CAI without an accompanying penetrating analysis. Considering his length of experience in the area of CAI, this lack is disappointing. Feingold writes an explanatory/promotional article on PLANIT, of interest to anyone who wishes to see whether it is worthwhile to learn more about the language. Fry attempts an objective review of CAI languages, but trips over the bias resulting from his coauthoring of PLANIT. On page 37 he has a list of contact people for 21 CAI languages. For some readers, this list will be more valuable than all the expository material. in ACM Computing Reviews 11(02) February 1970 view details Feingold (1967)-- describes a language, PLANIT (Programming LANguage for Interaction and Teaching), developed at Systems Development Corporation, Santa Monica, California. PLANIT is written in the JOVIAL language and used on the IBM AN/ FSQ-32 V computer; in [ACM] ACM Computing Surveys 2(4) Dec1970 view details [321 programming languages with indication of the computer manufacturers, on whose machinery the appropriate languages are used to know. Register of the 74 computer companies; Sequence of the programming languages after the number of manufacturing firms, on whose plants the language is implemented; Sequence of the manufacturing firms after the number of used programming languages.] in [ACM] ACM Computing Surveys 2(4) Dec1970 view details in [ACM] CACM 15(07) (July 1972) view details in [ACM] Proceedings of the 1973 annual ACM conference Atlanta, Georgia, United States view details in ACM Computing Reviews 15(04) April 1974 view details The exact number of all the programming languages still in use, and those which are no longer used, is unknown. Zemanek calls the abundance of programming languages and their many dialects a "language Babel". When a new programming language is developed, only its name is known at first and it takes a while before publications about it appear. For some languages, the only relevant literature stays inside the individual companies; some are reported on in papers and magazines; and only a few, such as ALGOL, BASIC, COBOL, FORTRAN, and PL/1, become known to a wider public through various text- and handbooks. The situation surrounding the application of these languages in many computer centers is a similar one. There are differing opinions on the concept "programming languages". What is called a programming language by some may be termed a program, a processor, or a generator by others. Since there are no sharp borderlines in the field of programming languages, works were considered here which deal with machine languages, assemblers, autocoders, syntax and compilers, processors and generators, as well as with general higher programming languages. The bibliography contains some 2,700 titles of books, magazines and essays for around 300 programming languages. However, as shown by the "Overview of Existing Programming Languages", there are more than 300 such languages. The "Overview" lists a total of 676 programming languages, but this is certainly incomplete. One author ' has already announced the "next 700 programming languages"; it is to be hoped the many users may be spared such a great variety for reasons of compatibility. The graphic representations (illustrations 1 & 2) show the development and proportion of the most widely-used programming languages, as measured by the number of publications listed here and by the number of computer manufacturers and software firms who have implemented the language in question. The illustrations show FORTRAN to be in the lead at the present time. PL/1 is advancing rapidly, although PL/1 compilers are not yet seen very often outside of IBM. Some experts believe PL/1 will replace even the widely-used languages such as FORTRAN, COBOL, and ALGOL.4) If this does occur, it will surely take some time - as shown by the chronological diagram (illustration 2) . It would be desirable from the user's point of view to reduce this language confusion down to the most advantageous languages. Those languages still maintained should incorporate the special facets and advantages of the otherwise superfluous languages. Obviously such demands are not in the interests of computer production firms, especially when one considers that a FORTRAN program can be executed on nearly all third-generation computers. The titles in this bibliography are organized alphabetically according to programming language, and within a language chronologically and again alphabetically within a given year. Preceding the first programming language in the alphabet, literature is listed on several languages, as are general papers on programming languages and on the theory of formal languages (AAA). As far as possible, the most of titles are based on autopsy. However, the bibliographical description of sone titles will not satisfy bibliography-documentation demands, since they are based on inaccurate information in various sources. Translation titles whose original titles could not be found through bibliographical research were not included. ' In view of the fact that nany libraries do not have the quoted papers, all magazine essays should have been listed with the volume, the year, issue number and the complete number of pages (e.g. pp. 721-783), so that interlibrary loans could take place with fast reader service. Unfortunately, these data were not always found. It is hoped that this bibliography will help the electronic data processing expert, and those who wish to select the appropriate programming language from the many available, to find a way through the language Babel. We wish to offer special thanks to Mr. Klaus G. Saur and the staff of Verlag Dokumentation for their publishing work. Graz / Austria, May, 1973 in ACM Computing Reviews 15(04) April 1974 view details in SIGPLAN Notices 13(11) Nov 1978 view details |