[Info-vax] message communication (VMS <> PC)

[Tim E. Sneddon]

Richard Maher wrote:
> Hi Rich,
> 
> "Rich Jordan" <jordan at ccs4vms.com> wrote in message
> news:3df05077-aa68-4f98-af79-2298899cbb90 at 21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 21, 11:12 am, Rob Brown <mylastn... at gmcl.com> wrote:
> 
>> I'll second NETLIB; it really makes the code a lot simpler if you
>> don't need to play in the intricacies of the socket level
> 
> What Absolute & Complete Bollocks!
> 
> TCPWare, Multinet, & UCX, all accept the *same* $QIO calls. Process Software
> have been at pains to maintain/introduce conformity across the IP Stacks,
> and the _BG: driver interface specifically.
> 
> If you can't handle $QIO then stop programming and take up real estate.
> (Sage advice for us all)

Oh boy, here I go.  I guess I'll step into the firing line here,
too.  I remember having this same discussion with you when
we worked together.  Apparently we all had no clue about how
to do anything because using NETLIB made it a whole lot
easier to write IP code in BASIC.  But hey, once the grand-movie-
quoting-keeper-of-all-vms-related-knowledge dropped some knowledge
on our sorry arses, we kindly ignored you and continued on
with our sorry miserable lives.

I happen to like NETLIB.  Sure, these days it's not such a big
deal.  As you correctly state, the remaining IP stacks all
work nicely at pretending to be each other.  However, I find it
easier to write code using NETLIB.  It's a sockets layer that
talks descriptors and such.  I happen to like that and I think
that it makes IP programming friendlier.

Now, before you suggest I pack up my computer, send it back
and pick up my realter's license from the Weeties box let's
just get it perfectly clear.  I program with NETLIB because I
choose to, not because (to paraphrase), "I can't handle the
$QIO!"

Does that make me some sort of "lamer" because I prefer it over
$QIO?  I guess that's up to whomever can be bothered to comment
on my social status.  How will I get through the rest of my
life not hanging out with the "programming jocks"?

> 
> NETLIB is a superfluous layer of abstraction that I'm sure even Hunter would
> acknowledge belongs to yesteryear along with most here :-(
> 

Whether Hunter feels that way or not is beside the point.

Tim.

PS.  Hopefully I have given you enough to keep you off the
      streets and busy composing yet more electronic epistles ;-)