[Info-vax] DCL Syntax

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 8/30/2018 8:32 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> 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?

In somewhat random order:
* bunch of new system services and RTL functions for what
   is needed today (we recently discussed LIB$HTTP(S)_*)
* better 64 bit handling
* new file system that:
   - removes current limits
   - improves performance
   - are more *nix/Windows compatible
* new user authentication model:
   - more secure password storage
   - better integration with external user management systems
* command language with more features including loops and arrays
* GUI management tools for all system administration
* C, C++ and Fortran compilers uptodate with current language standards

+whatever I have forgotten :-)

Arne