[Info-vax] BASIC compiler in the hobbyist distribution

[David Froble]

seasoned_geek wrote:

> The more OpenSource is ported to OpenVMS the fewer customers VMS
> (open or otherwise) will have. This is a historical fact most people
> seem to choose to ignore. Before OpenSource was ported to OpenVMS it
> was banned from Black Hat conferences. After OpenSource got ported to
> OpenVMS, providing the same 8-lane wide security breaches fake
> operating systems have it was welcomed back with open arms.

This indicates to me that the hackers are targeting the open source 
stuff more than the OS itself.  Could be a valid argument against open 
source.  But, really, one size doesn't fit all.  There could be some 
decent open source stuff.


> The BASIC interpreter was useful for several reasons. It allowed one
> to prototype things quite nicely then run it through an actual
> compiler for a real production speed solution. At least that was how
> I used it on the VAX.

Unless you were running ROSS/V you were not running any Basic 
interpreter on VAX that I'm aware of.  Basic Plus is an interpreter.  On 
VAX Basic they implemented "incremental compilation".  Ok, someone point 
out that that that is pretty much what an interpreter does.  My 
understanding it that it's not.

> During my PDP days, the interpreter was all there was (for a while).
> It allowed quite a bit of security though since we could have menu
> programs which chained to various line numbers in other programs.
> Anyone who tried to run such programs from the command line or
> whatever, without chaining to one of the line numbers which actually
> did something just saw a program which exited without actually doing
> anything.

VAX / DEC Basic still allows, as far as I know, chaining to a line 
number in a program.

> I don't remember "how" we did it. Perhaps it was during the
> BASIC/PLUS-II era, but, somehow we could distribute applications
> clients could load and run from the command line without them being
> able to see the source code. All of the chaining still worked. I
> don't remember if it was fully compiled or p-compiled or what. Those
> brain cells were sacrificed years ago.

Object modules can be distributed.  Executables can be distributed. 
Nothing special there.

> Yes, I would like to see the BASIC interpreter added back into the
> product. It was nice. Whenever you had a tricky piece of code to work
> on which was part of a much larger application, you could open up the
> interpreter and kick around 50 to a few hundred lines of code until
> the thing worked. THEN you put it in your real module.

Or, you could use the debugger ....

Yeah, both can be helpful.

> DCL needs to remain DCL.

I'm happy with DCL.

> If they, whoever 'they' are, wish to add another shell language, they
> need to roll from scratch based on the current ANSI standard a REXX
> interpreter + compiler. VMS needs to once again target the mainframe
> customers instead of trying to swim in the bottom of the sewer with
> the x86 crowd.

VMS can be used by all types of customers.  As a computer.  Not so much 
as a user interface.