[Info-vax] Compatibility and 64-bit

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2015-03-14 23:59:22 +0000, David Froble said:

> I find the arguments compelling ....
> 
> However, I have to ask, what are the probabilities as to where VMS is going?

No sé.  We might know a little more my later in the year, depending on 
what VSI wants to discuss at the boot camp.

> If VMS is at the threshold of a new life with many new adopters who 
> will use some of the suggested ideas, then by all means make it so they 
> will choose VMS.
> 
> Now let's look at another possibility.  VMS will NOT get many new 
> adopters, and the paying customers for VSI's services will mostly be 
> existing users, with existing applications.  In this scenario, would 
> not the arguments for compatibility be the better choice?

Ayup.  Aim for source code and run-time compatibility, keep the current 
installations rolling, but it'll inherently degrade out and we'll all 
eventually be back to the same discussions and decisions of early July, 
2014.  It might even be a nice business, while it lasts.

> Yeah, yeah, I know, as Ricky Nelson sang in "Garden Party", "if 
> memories are all I sing, I'd rather drive a truck".  Some may feel that 
> way, and not be interested in VMS unless they get what they desire.
> 
> I have no clue what the future will bring, nor do I have any decent 
> idea which path(s) should be chosen.  If there is anything I'd say, it 
> would be "whatever's done should not be too hard for either type of 
> user to adopt".

I've driven an old International with a non-synchro five-speed with a 
split rear axle and manual steering.  Hand-over-hand climbing up the 
side of a very large steering wheel, and with the cargo sloshing around 
in an non-baffled tank.   The old GMC cab-over had a minimum height, as 
you had to be tall enough to have your left foot on the clutch and your 
hand on the gearshift for fifth behind you to the right.  At least the 
GMC had power steering, and slightly better baffling.   I'd much rather 
drive a new truck, with an automatic, power steering, AC and a real 
baffled tank.  Oh, and with an air seat.  But I digress.  Yes, VSI has 
to decide where they're aiming.  I'd expect short-term up front, but — 
if they want to expand with OpenVMS, and even with existing customers — 
VMS has to get simpler and more capable, as that's how and why even 
existing folks will decide to start new work on VMS, and not somewhere 
else.

> As someone who write a bunch of stuff using Basic, but who also plays 
> around with data in string descriptors, I can see some nasty surprises 
> coming if backward compatibility is abandoned.

Which is part of why — if things are looking forward, and not backward 
— descriptor support needs to get a whole lot better and simpler, which 
might well end up with the APIs and the descriptors and the rest 
becoming objects.  Both Windows and OS X have provided OO APIs for most 
of the system frameworks and tools — think itemlists in terms of 
flexibility, but with no glue code needed.


-- 
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC