[Info-vax] OpenVMS Development Annoyances

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 5/5/2019 10:21 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 5/5/2019 8:42 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 5/5/2019 6:41 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>>>> 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>
>>
>>>> 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
>>
>> The API is horrible.
> 
> Just what is so horrible?  If it was hard to use, then I would not like 
> it.  Do I need to post examples to show just how easy it is to use?

The non-W, EFN, ASTADR and ASTPRM mechanisms are not nearly as
convenient as modern ways to do async.

The variable length LKSB is an ugly hack.

The value block is also very low level.

It is an API that makes sense in Macro-32. Not so much in a HLL.

>> If you like the API then the *nix libdlm has the exact awful API.
>>
>> :-)
> 
> Usable from Basic?

If you can find a Basic for *nix that provides decent
C API interop and support for pthreads (libdlm supposedly
use pthreads to simulate AST's).

One could give Mono's VB a try if one really wanted.

>>> Basic
>>
>> :-)
> 
> That all you can say about the best feature?

It is an OK procedural language.

The world has moved on.

Arne