[Info-vax] DCL Syntax

[Dave Froble]

On 8/30/2018 8:59 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> 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)_*)

Ya know, that type of thinking would lead to an infinite number of 
library routines, and no other code would ever be needed.  That's just 
not realistic.  You trying to put everyone out of a job?  If you need 
something, you write it.  If you need it more than a few times, build 
your own library.

> * better 64 bit handling

Really?  What's the problem?  Yes, I'm aware of the kluge, but, it works.

> * new file system that:
>    - removes current limits
>    - improves performance
>    - are more *nix/Windows compatible

I do believe that's in the works, so, from that perspective, it's not a 
needed feature.

> * new user authentication model:
>    - more secure password storage
>    - better integration with external user management systems

I do believe that's in the works, so, from that perspective, it's not a 
needed feature.

> * command language with more features including loops and arrays

Ah, isn't that what programming languages provide?  I really don't see 
too much need for such in command procedures.  Now, if you're under the 
misconception that DCL is for writing application programs, well, you're 
just plain wrong.

> * GUI management tools for all system administration

As noted, VMS doesn't have a GUI, at least for which there is modern HW.

> * C, C++ and Fortran compilers uptodate with current language standards

Yeah, all those old programs just all quit working ....

That's really a minor nit for some people.  Not what I'd call major. 
But you may feel differently.

Somehow I don't feel that you've come up with some huge list that puts 
VMS in a very bad way.  Nothing is perfect.  Now perhaps come up with a 
list of what Linux, or weendoze, lacks.  You can start with "lock 
manager as part of OS", and go on from there.

Nothing is perfect, but, people keep saying VMS is way behind, but I 
just don't see it.  Perhaps it's because different people do different 
things.  I'm sure there are some bad fits, but also some rather good fits.