[Info-vax] BASIC compiler in the hobbyist distribution

[David Froble]

seasoned_geek wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-5, David Froble wrote:
>> So, where do I find the IDEs that work with VAX/DEC Basic?
> 
> There have been a few hacks.
> 
> Color coding only with SlickEdit
> https://www.slickedit.com/products/slickedit/languages-supported
> 
> Some kind of NetBeans plugin
> http://compgroups.net/comp.os.vms/netbeans-basic-plugin/523219
> 
> There was supposedly an Eclipse plugin at one point but they might only support VAX COBOL now.
> 
> I do not remember the full setup, but you could configure LSE to do builds directing output to another buffer. Might have even been some support for jumping to the line number. Sadly I tended to use LSE as a better EDT with a syntax help key. I didn't dig deeply into the integration features with CMS/MMS. I vaguely remember showing how to use them in 
> 
> http://theminimumyouneedtoknow.com/app_book.html
> 
> but it has been quite a few years.
>> Frankly, I don't see where geek's argument is coming from.  HW is HW, it 
>> does what it's told to do.  Unless I'm entirely clueless (as some have 
>> claimed) I don't see where x86 (other than being a poorly implemented 
>> but very well developed CPU) is any different from others.
> 
> It's not just the OS which gives up times measured in decades, it's the hardware. Once migrated to x86 up times will be measured in weeks (especially with blades instead of rack mounts) or at best months. Yes, each of you can find ONE x86 system somewhere which was in a perfect environment and defied all odds. Those are statistical anomalies, not the norm.
> 
> Vendors are finally starting to talk about the failure rate. Page 17 in this document is interesting.
> 
> http://s3.amazonaws.com/isby/lenovopartnernetwork.com/upload/1/docs/1p2-2p-portfolio-positioning-client-pres.pdf
> 
> I say it is interesting because they scope it to 4 hour failures or more. No numbers provided about those "random reboots". What is even more interesting is that no x86 vendor is touting up-times. Marketing has ceased pushing quality. They now are defining it as being the lowest percentage of 4+ hour failures instead of 4+ years of contiguous up time.
> 
> Yes, you can point to special radiation/EMP/etc hardened versions of x86 made for some satellites. So what? It's the cheap pieces of doo-doo going into the racks and blades.
> 
> For many years after the last PDP 11 was made, perhaps north of a decade after, CAT had one factory floor (possibly more, but I only know people that worked at one) which had its milling/cutting/drilling/other equipment controlled by PDP equipment. There was simply no reason to replace something which did not fail.
> 
>> Sometimes JOAT is good.  At other times maybe not.  Is it ordained that 
>> VMS must grow beyond what it does well now?  I'm not so sure.  Sometimes 
>> people need a good back office (your term, not mine) server that does 
>> it's job well.
>>
>> I don't believe that the decline of VMS had anything to do with it's 
>> capabilities.  Instead try DEC's embrace of Unix and weendoze, Compaq's 
>> lack of resolve, and HP's neglect.  Then there was dropping Alpha, and 
>> selecting the itanic.  A long string of bad decisions.  Can any 
>> customers be blamed for thinking the ship was sinking, and seeking 
>> lifeboats?
>>
> 
> Let us point out yet another domino effect from the ill-advised
> "pursuit of open".
> 
> Microsoft paid marketing places, probably even Gartner, to declare
> "Open good, Proprietary bad". They also paid to have these same
> marketing types declare weendoze, one of the most proprietary
> operating systems on the planet, as "open".
> 
> The genetic missfits in charge of DEC decision making at the time
> decided to jettison DIBOL because as DIgital's Business Oriented
> Language and therefore now that horrible "proprietary".

When DEC listened to it's customers, it did well.  When DEC started 
telling it's customers what to do, they didn't do so well.