[Info-vax] DCL Syntax

[Dave Froble]

On 8/30/2018 1:49 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 8/30/2018 1:27 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 8/30/2018 11:54 AM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>>> Ayup.  OpenVMS I/O needs a complete overhaul, beyond the now-postponed
>>> work on VAFS and 64-bit sector addresses and 4 KB sector sizes. There've
>>> been earlier newsgroup discussions of hardware-related work including
>>> (hypothetically) adding NVMe I/O and byte-addressable storage, too.  The
>>> sheer scale of a modern, feature-competitive server operating system is
>>> not to be underestimated.
>>>
>>> Just because any of us were willing to learn a particular API — and many
>>> of us have spent decades learning OpenVMS and its incantations and its
>>> glue code, often piecemeal — does not that mean that other folks will be
>>> nearly as willing to make that same investment of focus and time.  Nor
>>> does it mean that any of us won't have to learn new approaches.  Change
>>> and churn is part of IT.   In the tech.  And in the expectations.
>>
>> I read the above as a bit of a condemnation of VMS, specifically the
>> methods in performing tasks.  But, doesn't every OS out there have the
>> same concerns?  Not one of them reads your mind and does what you
>> desire, not what you asked for.
>>
>> So at worst, VMS is equal to all others, and since I'm biased, I'd
>> argue that the usage of the APIs, VMS utilities, and yes DCL, are in
>> some cases superior.  If english is your first language, I'd argue VMS
>> is far superior in it's commands.
>>
>> Just asking, does anyone have the byte addressable storage that has
>> been discussed?  Don't know.  Perhaps VMS could lead in this concept?
>>
>> Just because some already know Linux doesn't mean VMS is less ....
>>
>> All that written, yes, VMS does have some ugly warts and missing
>> capabilities.  But what doesn't?
>
>
> Having warts is common. And having to add features later
> in a products life often cause some compromises to be made.
>
> I think VMS is missing more capabilities than most OS due
> to many years of neglect.
>
> But hopefully VSI wil fix that.

Ok, that's a claim that I question.  So let's look at specifics.

First we can acknowledge that TCP/IP, SSL, certificates, and associated 
functions need lots of TLC.

But aside from that, and a desktop GUI, just what are some of those OS 
capabilities that you feel are behind the competition?

> Even though I realize that their resources (funding) is not endless.
>
> Arne
>
>