[Info-vax] DCL Syntax

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2018-08-30 17:47:09 +0000, Arne Vajhj said:

> On 8/30/2018 11:54 AM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>> 
>> There's no particular reason to go after this or any other isolated 
>> qualifier qualifier right now.  Not without some other associated 
>> updates and improvements.
>> 
>> That written, rote compatibility is a very poor reason for keeping bad 
>> or limited or outdated designs and implementations around.  That path 
>> only leads to clutter and confusion and constraints.
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> Given the current situation for VMS then I find it very important for 
> VMS to stay very compatible

For not the first time, that approach is what got OpenVMS where it is 
now.  That way ends nowhere else.  This fixation with complete and 
utter upward compatibility is poison.  Utter, unmitigated, untenable 
poison.

There are and will be areas that absolutely have to be broken to move 
the platform forward.  To secure the platform.  To provide the features 
needed to be competitive.

There are other areas of OpenVMS that really need to be broken and 
fixed and won't be, at least for the foreseeable future.

Again, with the specific breakages chosen and with a path forward and 
with a better replacement provided, and very far from any suggestions 
of arbitrary and capricious breakage.

In retrospect, causing OpenVMS users to expect complete upward 
compatibility was one of the worst decisions that DEC OpenVMS 
development ever made.

Fixing some of these current messes is absolutely and fundamentally 
incompatable with upward-compatibility and API stability, no matter how 
hard y'all wish it to be otherwise.

Is VSI going to want to break very much?  Of course not.  But — for not 
the first time — there are areas of OpenVMS which can only move forward 
by breaking APIs.



-- 
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC