[Info-vax] HP wins Oracle Itanium case

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2012-08-27 22:51, Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <k18f4q$7jh$1 at Iltempo.Update.UU.SE>, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> writes:
>>
>> That is just because you are using some HLL which have built in support
>> to call RMS with keywords that map to RMS functionality... :-)
>
>     Nope.  I use RMS every time I code in an HLL on VMS, without any
>     mention of, or special keywords referencing RMS.
>
>     For some of the HLL, there are some ectended capabilities, but I
>     don't have to use them in my code to be using RMS.
>
>> RMS have some good and tight integration with the languages in VMS, but
>> that doesn't mean it plays on the same level as any other database... ;-)
>
>     Don't know anyone claiming that it did.
>
>> But nowadays everyone like to use C, or something similar in taste, in
>> which all invocations of anything means doing function calls.
>> I bet you even need function calls to do anything with RMS from C (you
>> do on a PDP-11 atleast...)
>
>     I would be very suprized if fprintf on RSX-11M/M+ wasn't implemented
>     on top of RMS or FCS.

There are in fact three versions. One using RMS, one using FCS, and one 
which just gives an error if you try open a disk file, but which works 
if you do I/O to stdout.

>     All the function calls I need to do RMS from C on a VMS system are
>     the ASCII standard C library calls.  And no, I don't have to use
>     the DEC extenstions that provide additional arguments.

Ah. Misunderstood you. I thought I were using RMS for something more 
advanced than just stream I/O. Yes, pretty much any language, under any 
OS, will offer that much functionality. Using RMS, or whatever I/O 
functionality offered by the OS.

	Johnny