[Info-vax] OpenVMS Development Annoyances

[Dave Froble]

On 5/5/2019 4:18 PM, seasoned_geek wrote:
> On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 10:43:32 AM UTC-5, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>>
>>
>> As was mentioned else-thread, ACMS integration with SYSUAF and logical
>> names?  Yeah, okay, but that's not selling this for me.  SYSUAF and
>> logical names and ilk are among the more problematic OpenVMS features.
>>
>
> Since Dave didn't poke the bear on this one, I have to.

Apparently now ah has been poked ....

> If you don't like the high quality things which make OpenVMS, VMS (common SYSUAF, logical name tables with logicals actually in them, and file versioning) why don't you just go develop on Linux? <Grin>
>
> Actually that is only half a jest. I have been developing on Linux with C++/Qt for embedded systems (mostly medical devices) for oh, decade or more now. While I like it, absolutely none of those systems give me the feeling of safety and robustness OpenVMS does.
>
> I love all those things you hate. If they go away there is no reason for VMS to even exist.

For me, there is a whole bunch of reality in that last statement.

DLM
Logicals
Basic
Common calling std ( well, except for things such as C, C++, et;al
BACKUP
Stand Alone BACKUP !!!!!
/IGNORE=INTERLOCK  :-)
Oh, Ok, VMS clustering
RMS (yeah, it's old, but at least it's there)
and more ...

As for passwords, no matter what is done, it will never be secure.  If 
anyone get a copy of your SYSUAF or whatever replaces it.  Challenge / 
response would be better.  And other methods.

And VMS has some warts, some really old warts.  But that can be fixed. 
If we're going to be bashing VMS for 1978 warts, then let's also bash 
the rest of computing for what it had (or didn't have) in 1978.

> Having said that, the only thing I hate about development on VMS is being asked to work in C/C++.

Then why do you do so?  You're just enabling those who ask you to do so.

> Made the mistake of doing that not long ago. Give me BASIC or COBOL 8 days per week when on VMS. That is, of course, if the client location doesn't have DIBOL. I can even enjoy a bit of FORTRAN. (Hopefully PASCAL will be taken out and shot!) Sorry, but that was the world's most pointless language. I know some people love it and will be roasting voodoo dolls of me over their grills later, but totally ignoring the language standard (as Borland Turbo Pascal did) was the only way to make a language which, at the time had exactly 2, count them 2, I/O channels usable. I don't care how much it changed since then. I was forced to use that Borland product and it was a childhood trauma which decades of therapy couldn't possibly repair.
>
> Now that I've spewed all of that here I have to ask, what programming language are you trying to use right now? Your usually much less vitriol in your VMS complaints so I'm guessing it is C/C++. Yeah, I was deeply in touch with my "inner Bill" the last time I tried to use that on VMS.
>
> Bring in a modern DIBOL compiler, you will be much happier.
> http://www.dibol.com/
>
> You would even be much happier working with Fortran77 and somewhere near Nirvana with Fortran90. I know I would have been the last time I used C/C++ on VMS. It's just plain nasty.
>
> Don't forget to use FMS to create yourself a nice clean VT-100 compatible control screen for enqueing/dequeing your ACMS tasks while adjusting the min/max server numbers and things will be good. Set it up for numeric keypad navigation and you will love it.
>


-- 
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