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

[David Froble]

Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> David Froble skrev den 2015-01-20 14:26:
>> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>>> David Froble skrev den 2015-01-20 09:13:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also have libraries of routines to do things.  If I have libraries in
>>>> Basic that match the libraries in say Python, then what's the major
>>>> difference between the environments?  I suggest it's very little.
>>>
>>> Doesn't your Basic need a compiler? And if so, do you have
>>> a compiler on every system? Or do you need to build your
>>> quick-fix one-of-the-kind tool on some other system first?
>>>
>>> With Python you get a fast edit/test/edit/test cycle.
>>> With Basic ou get edit/compile/copy/test/edit/compile/copy/test.
>>>
>>> That is, if your Basic compiler is on another system.
>>>
>>> Jan-Erik.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Basic compiler on all systems.  And if not, with DECnet and FAL, it 
>> doesn't
>> matter.  I can even execute the image sitting on a dev system on say a
>> production system over the network.  Well, if same architecture.
>>
>> But, for us, the production system has the compiler, so no issue.
> 
> I guess that "but, for us" is the key here... :-)
> 
> Anyway, I can't see getting a Basic compiler is the general
> answer to having something to complement DCL.

What about Cobol?

I'm not saying it has to be Basic.  I'm saying there are existing 
alternatives.

> Oh, and another thing... The Python port is no-cost. I have
> not checked, but I do not think the Basic compiler is.

That is a business decision.

I'm thinking that some or all of the compilers should be bundled with 
VMS.  Better chance of including them in a support contract.