[Info-vax] VMS Features I Wish Linux Had

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2016-06-14 13:14, johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 10:29:00 UTC+1, Johnny Billquist  wrote:
>> On 2016-06-13 22:51, Bob Koehler wrote:
>>> In article <njmdvo$vo0$1 at Iltempo.Update.UU.SE>, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> writes:
>>>> On 2016-06-13 14:59, Bob Koehler wrote:
>>>>> In article <njeel9$fq3$1 at dont-email.me>, "John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw at qsl.net_work> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One issue with the VMS terminal line editing is because it is handled in
>>>>>> the driver, it does not have access to the filesystem to allow it to do
>>>>>> filename completion.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Which belongs in the CLI, not the terminal driver.  The CLI should be
>>>>>    doing it's own command line editing,instead of leaning on the limited
>>>>>    editing in the driver.
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree. I want command line editing, no matter if I'm at the CLI,
>>>> or in some user application. And I do not consider it to be a good
>>>> system design that every program should include their own version of
>>>> commmand line editing.
>>>
>>>    Putting editing into the CLI does not mean it has to be removed from
>>>    the terminal driver.  But the terminal driver is a limited context
>>>    and should only be used for limited purposes.
>>
>> True. One does not exclude the other. But I fail to see the benefit of
>> having both.
>>
>>>    I've got UNIX shells that will let me make use of most of the power
>>>    of vi (oxymoron), or emacs.  I see no reason why all that should be
>>>    in a driver.  But I also don't want a driver that provides only the
>>>    functions of a card punch.
>>
>> I want that vi or emacs capability always, no matter what program or
>> context I am in, and not just at the CLI or shell. Which is the reason I
>> think it belongs in the driver. This functionality, in my mind, is not
>> tied to a specific application or environment. It's a functionality that
>> I want basically all the time, everywhere. Based on that, it's not hard
>> to see where it should go.
>>
>> 	Johnny
>
> It may not be hard to see where it should go on RSX.

Well, if anything, I would expect people to argue just the opposite. 
With a very limited memory space, and a terminal driver that is already 
complex beyond belief, RSX could be a real nightmare. And to be honest - 
would I have to actually put the code directly into the terminal driver, 
it would never have happened.

However, since the terminal driver have the capability of calling out to 
code outside of the driver, but in the driver context, it became much 
more doable.

> VMS is not RSX (and UNIX is not VMS).

Definitely not. VMS can bloat in way totally impossible in RSX.

> For this kind of line-editing thing, VMS has SMG, which also
> works for line-oriented (as well as screen-oriented) applications.
>
> So for command line handling with multi line recall, definable keys,
> and other such delights, VMS programmers might want to look at
> SMG or something based on SMG. Or they might not. Depends what
> the goals and constraints are.

Essentially the Unix solution, in other words. Each program should link 
in a library for doing this, and it depends on each program which 
library they happen to link in, and with which options, and the end 
result will be different everywhere.

I'm not particularly impressed.

	Johnny