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

[David Froble]

Bob Koehler wrote:
Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <m9lknm$cob$1 at dont-email.me>, David Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>> 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.
> 
>    We generally don't allow compilers on production systems as the
>    customer is deathly afraid of what unauthorized software someone
>    might write.
> 
>    But there's always "Basic" vs. "basic".  Macro-32 is not Basic and
>    not a compiler on VAXen, but it makes a good basic compiler for many
>    of us.
> 

So, the customer has tunnel vision, huh?  If it's called a compiler, 
they see it, but if it's called an assembler, they don't see it?

:-)

What about DCL, since some misguided souls seem to proclaim it a 
"programming language"?