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

[VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG]

In article <Dgg6n.2721$pv.525 at news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Tim E. Sneddon" <tim.sneddon at bigpond.com> writes:
>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 ;-)

Many many beers ago, I wrote my own socket library routines which invoke 
the bg interface supported in all the stacks.  Made my life simpler back
in the day when the socket library of the disparate stacks wouldn't play
as nicely together as they have in recent history.

I have never used NETLIB but several of the TCP/IP apps on my systems do
and I don't see any problem with a level of abstraction.  If abstraction
is one's beef today, put away those OO lingos (C++) and code like a real
man! :) :) :)

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker    VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

  http://www.quirkfactory.com/popart/asskey/eqn2.png
  
Yeah. You know, it occurs to me that the best way you hurt rich people is by
turning them into poor people. -- Billy Ray Valentine