[Info-vax] VAX Macro to C conversion

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 7/9/19 1:55 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2019-07-09, Dave Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 7/9/2019 3:08 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2019-07-08, Dave Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Macro-32 is an assembler on the VAX.  On Alpha, itanic, and x86 is is a
>>>> compiled language, and not anything you'd want to use on the non-VAX
>>>> systems.  Just ask John.  It exists strictly for existing code.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's nothing to do with whether it's an assembler or a compiler.
>>>
>>> It's to do with the fact that assembly language is so low level
>>> and error prone even when compared to C.
>>
>> One might argue that "low level" maybe has less chance for errors.
>>
> 
> You are kidding right ?

No, I amn sure he actually believes that.

> 
>> One might also argue that C is rather prone to errors.
>>
> 
> Yes it is unfortunately and other languages have thankfully improved on it.

Hogwash.  The language is just fine.  It is not the language's
fault that idiots use it to develop code that is beyond their
abilities.

> 
> It doesn't change the fact that C, with all its well known flaws, is
> still a more robust language than assembly language to write code in.

Choose the right tool for the job.  It's not supposed to be
a competition to see which language can be mis-used the most.

> 
>>>> However, if your target was a VAX, (not available anymore), it might be
>>>> a viable choice, or not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> These days, the only thing anyone uses assembly language for in
>>> new code are the small segments which cannot be coded even in C.
>>
>> "anyone" ??????
>>
>> It is rather amusing when people state their personal opinions as
>> universal.  Can I then claim Basic as the best language to use?
>>
> 
> The difference is that I can look at other operating systems to
> back up that comment. You don't see major portions of a Unix/Linux
> kernel being written in assembly language for example. Even VMS now
> has new stuff being mainly written in C or better.

Assembler was probably not needed at the time the original VMS
stuff was being developed but the people doing the work felt
most comfortable with it and it did fit the job.

> 
> What you see is assembly language being used for small bits of
> architecture specific code and C or better being used for the
> rest of the kernel and user space code.

I have seen OSes written in things other than C or assembler.
PL/I, SPL, Pascal, even Fortran (and I am sure others but I
only mention the ones I know personally.)

> 
> Oh and I didn't say that C was the best language to use as it most
> certainly is not. What I said is that it's a better language than
> assembly language to write new code in and that is true.

Maybe, but not necessarily.

> 
> Any claim that Basic is the best language to use would have to show
> how the language is being widely used to solve problems in all areas
> of the computing world and how testing and analysis has shown that
> it is better than all the other options out there.
> 
> Do you know of any such testing and analysis ?

I don't know of any other language suffering such ignominies.
In it's day BASIC was used for many of the things you expect
other languages to be used for.  I expect that the same inertia
that keeps COBOL, Fortran, RPG, PL/I, etc . going strong would also 
apply to BASIC in more places than you re likelt to be willing to
accept.

bill