[Info-vax] Most popular application programming languages on VMS ?

[John Reagan]

On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 12:31:23 PM UTC-5, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 1/10/2019 6:05 AM, gérard Calliet wrote:
> 
> > I thought about collaboration, but it seems collaborated business is
> > very far from the VMS culture.
> 
> I can see both sides of this issue.
> 
> I offered to look at the DLM, attempt to implement numeric range 
> locking.  I was told VSI doesn't have the time and people to 
> manage/oversee any such work, at this time.
> 
> I can understand that it could be a distraction.  The other side is, 
> nothing is achieved.  I personally believe that VSI could use all the 
> help they could get, but, they do need to be assured the help is not 
> going to be a hindrance.
> 
> I also see a difference.  What I proposed would have a direct effect on 
> the port.  Helping provide an add-on, such as a compiler, would have no 
> appreciable effect on the port.
> 
> If VMS is to benefit from the things that have seemed to benefit Linux, 
> ie; pieces developed and contributed by many people, then VSI would need 
> to accept such contributions.  Now, I'm not making any accusations, but, 
> I sometimes wonder if they want to be the sole owner of anything 
> distributed with VMS.
> 
> I'd hope they will in time accept contributions and collaboration.
> 
> -- 
> David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef at tsoft-inc.com
> DFE Ultralights, Inc.
> 170 Grimplin Road
> Vanderbilt, PA  15486

We've come back to that?  The DLM already has the support for ranges.  The CRTL uses it today for byte-range-locking.  It has to do more processing to deal with overlapping ranges vs completely contained ranges to match the POSIX definitions.

$ search sys$library:starlet.req lki$_brl, lki$_range
literal LKI$_BRL = 265;                 !  IS THE LOCK A BYTE RANGE LOCK
literal LKI$_RANGE = 266;               !  Range of request