[Info-vax] VAX Macro to C conversion

[Dave Froble]

On 7/19/2019 11:22 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 7/19/2019 10:54 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 7/19/2019 3:06 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 7/18/19 9:45 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> Note that MS supposedly are considering towards Rust:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/07/18/microsoft_argues_for_memorysafe_languages_hints_at_move_from_c_to_rust
>>>
>>>
>>> And are all the lemmings supposed to follow them of the edge
>>> of the cliff?
>>
>> I find the following interesting:
>>
>> "Rust is syntactically similar to C++, but it provides increased speed
>> and better memory safety"
>>
>> And so I ask, is this just a "newer or better" implementation of C++
>> but with a new name?
>>
>> Might make porting C++ code to the "newer and better" language.
>
> I think that is a rather liberal use of "syntactically similar".
>
> If I look at the examples at:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_(programming_language)#Examples
>
> then I consider it rather different from C++ syntax.

However, that quote came from that wiki page ....

>> Now, if these people wanted to do something really good, they could
>> design a new Basic compiler that implemented some of the desired
>> features.
>>
>> What's that?  Nobody likes Basic syntax?  Sucks to be you Dave ....
>
> Basic already has a lot of features that makes it better than C for
> business applications and worse than C for operating systems.

Just what in the Basic language, as implemented in VAX/DEC Basic is 
worse for OS work?

Keep in mind that there is a difference between a compiler 
implementation and a language.  It is the current VAX/DEC Basic compiler 
that does not support threads, uses library routines which do not help 
performance, and such.

Another compiler implementation?  Who knows what it could do?


-- 
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