[Info-vax] Happy Australia Day

[Richard Maher]

Hi Tim,

"Tim E. Sneddon" <tim.sneddon at bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:Dgg6n.2721$pv.525 at news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 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.

My recollection has it that both the VINREG lookup and the Reynolds'
Inter-Dealership Parts Trading System (CLERA?) were both
implemented/interfaced with straight $QIO calls. But then I wrote them a few
years ago now and maybe things are different.

As far as BASIC goes I have to agree that using a piece o' shit language
that does not support the compile-time initialization of item-lists was
inconvenient, but hardly debilitating. Having said that, how many people
would rate "being easier to write in BASIC" as up there on their
requirements lists these days? Sadly that system, like most VMS applications
today, are captives of their past until a non-VMS replacement comes along.
Needlessly so :-(

But I have to agree NETLIB is probably a much better fit for a system with
it's genesis in PDPs, block-i/o files, and a hand-rolled DECForms-esque
generator for a UI ;-)
>
> 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.

Then you'll probably love jQuery, at least that adds some value. I see
NETLIB as nothing more than bureaucracy but if it floats you're boat and
everyone's happy with the support and restrictions then more power to ya.
Rather than making this all about me/you I just wanted the OP to know that
Sockets are easy, fast, industry-standard, extremely effective, and by their
very nature can provide the *only* fully-featured interface to TCP/IP. Who
knows? Maybe they're a big DECAdmire or other code-generating shop? Crave
the insulation and false-security of other libraries like jQuery, and shun
the distatefuleness of a utilitarian $QIO in the raw? Up to them.
>
> 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!"

Good for you.
>
> 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"?

Don't be so hard on yourself.
>
> >
> > 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.

Probably more interesting to the OP than what you or I had to say?
>
> Tim.

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

Packing the car, so we can spend the week-end in Margaret River. With
probably everyone else and their dog from Perth :-(