[Info-vax] C99 stuff (Re: The Road to V9.0)

[Phillip Helbig undress to reply]

In article <efc3fbf5-8395-4bfc-960d-3ae0e7425af4 at googlegroups.com>, Bob
Gezelter <gezelter at rlgsc.com> writes: 

> WADR, while large components of the existing user base are comprised of
> FORTRAN, PASCAL, COBOL, and BASIC, I have found that even in
> installations which are based on "classic" languages, there are
> dependencies on C/C++. Often these dependencies are in the areas of
> supporting toolchains (e.g., ZIP/UNZIP, Apache, etc.). I note John's
> earlier posting on the question of native C++ using LLVM. 

ZIP and UNZIP are definitely something many people need.  Unless you 
donate an x86 machine to Steven Schweda, then we'll have to build them 
ourselves (assuming that they compile out of the box).

> Admittedly without proof, I suspect that many ISVs and end-users will
> discover that the lack of native C/C++ is an impediment.
> Direction/guidance in this regard would likely be welcomed. 

Back in the day, DEC's compilers were widely recognized as the  best, 
and in many cases were the de-facto industry standard.  I'd like to see 
that revived.  In particular, it would be nice if Fortran were brought 
up to date.  Reasonable versions of Pascal, C, C++, Cobol, and Basic 
would be nice.

A hobbyist license (free or for a reasonable fee) coupled with access to 
patches and new versions would bring in a whole slew of folks willing 
and able to test things, probably more than understandably careful 
production-environment people could.

What would surprise people most if I could travel back 25 years in a 
time machine and report from the future?  Probably two things: no free 
access to VMS patches, and unlimited free porn.  Maybe in the former 
case we can turn the clock back.