[Info-vax] DCL Syntax

[Dave Froble]

On 8/30/2018 3:58 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> 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 bad or limited or outdated designs and implementations around.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.

Interesting.  But vague.  Perhaps you could list your top 5 "things" 
that you feel to be replaced with something that is not backward 
compatible?  When doing so, address each of the following:

1) Why

2) How

3) What would you say to those whose apps will suffer, and claim they 
will not upgrade to new versions, and will not pay for support.

As I'm still living in a 32 bit world (Basic), I wonder how such would 
affect me.

I'm also wondering how compatibility will be affected by the new TCP/IP?