[Info-vax] DCL's flaws (both scripting and UI)

[David Froble]

johnson.eric at gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 3:09:25 AM UTC-5, David Froble wrote:
> 
>> But still very helpful.  If it 
>> does everything I need, what does the missing stuff matter, to me?
> 
> I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise... for you. If you like your house,
> and you don't want to leave, stay put.
> 
> But I think even you might be able to concede that for the larger world
> simply pairing DCL and DEC Basic as a sufficient development tool chain
> for everyone else would be a bit of a stretch. But given your recent posts,
> it seems like you are even more dug into this view point.
> 
> EJ

It's rather difficult for me to know what I don't have, if I don't need 
/ use it.

If someone can show me what I cannot do, that other tools can do, then 
maybe my environment is not so all inclusive.  So far, I have not been 
shown such.

This discussion start as "what is deficient in DCL", and my argument is 
that instead of insisting that DCL be enhanced, possibly using a better 
tool would be a better course of action.  Now it has expanded to the 
merits of other tools, such as Python and Perl, considered "modern" 
while I've suggested that some of the older compiled languages, used 
with a good tool set, are also appropriate for the job.

Now, it is possible that some of the "modern" tool sets are easier for 
some to use, if they have the expertise, while those more used to more 
"traditional" tool sets might not have the same result.

What I think happens with a language such s Basic is that some people, 
not you Steve, have never really explored it, and just dismiss it out of 
hand.  My argument is that while some concepts that are possible only 
because of newer HW may be missing, because HP ignored VMS for so long, 
that the capabilities of Basic, while having a few warts (what doesn't?) 
  can match up rather well to any other environment on VMS.  I have as 
yet not seen any evidence to contradict this.