[Info-vax] Any stronger versions of the LMF planned ?, was: Re: LMF Licence Generator Code

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 8/9/21 8:34 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 8/9/2021 7:59 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 8/8/21 9:23 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 8/8/2021 7:07 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not exactly true.  While modern BASIC has c ome a long way it
>>>> will never escape its roots which were not in the IT Production
>>>> world.  Like Pascal it was intended to teach concepts and,
>>>> believe it or not, one of those concepts was not programming
>>>> per se.
>>>
>>> Interesting statement.  Coming from someone who admits to not being
>>> familiar with the language.
>>
>> Misunderstanding, again.  What I am is not an expert in VMS BASIC.
>> I have used BASIC since the Kemeny/Kurtz days.  I have done real
>> production work using BASIC on everything from Micros to Mainframes.
>> I have done business, financial and engineering programming in BASIC.
>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps older implementations of Basic were as described.
>>
>> I stated that modern BASIC had improved but that doesn't change the
>> original purpose.  The idea of "fixing" these languages (like they
>> also tried with Pascal even after the original author of Pascal
>> gave them an alternative) is little more than a band-aid when you
>> consider there were/are languages designed to do the work people
>> try to do with these languages.
>>
>>>
>>> Some time back, as I recall things, some of the compiler people at DEC
>>> asked the question, "why cannot every language be able to do what
>>> others do?".  The result was the implementation of many new features
>>> in Basic.
>>
>> Exactly.  "Lets put a band-aid on the language rather than do the proper
>> software engineering task of choosing the right tool for the job."
>>
>>>
>>> Sadly, not unsigned integers.
>>
>> Sometimes having a feature can result in some interesting errors.  I
>> have seen them, caused by unsigned integers, personally.
>>
>>>
>>> Also sadly, some of the performance inhibitors in Basic, such as the
>>> issue when returning from a subprogram.
>>>
>>> So, I'd ask for you to explain your statement.
>>>
>>
>> Simple: Choose the right tool for the job.
>> BASIC, like Pascal was intended to teach certain concepts.  It was
>> not intended as a production language.  Production languages existed,
>> even when BASIC and Pascal were created.  In those days, new languages
>> weren't just ego trips.  They were designed for particular tasks.
>> They should be used for the tasks they were designed for. That is
>> a major part of real software engineering.
>>
>> bill
>>
>>
>>
> 
> You seem to be implying that VMS Basic is not a "right tool for the 
> job".  

Depends on the job.  I only have an inkling into just what the
program(s) you do in BASIC are or do but I suspect from a real
software engineering standpoint BASIC was the wrong tool.  What
made it the right tool may have been just your familiarity with
it.

>         Does your opinion (that's what it is) out weight the opinions of 
> others?  

My opinion based on decades of research by people much better at this
stuff than I am, but, yes, my opinion.  Does the CDC's opinion on how
to handle COVID outweigh ordinary people's opinions?  They claim to be
backed by "science".  I, too, claim to be backed by computer science.
In the end, everyone is free to do as they please.  The discussion is
purely academic.  I have done many things in many different fields of
endeavor that I was told (usually after the fact) were impossible.

>           There have been and still are many serious applications 
> implemented using VMS Basic.  Are all those people who use VMS Basic 
> "wrong"?

"Wrong" is another of those words that can be more subjective than
objective.  Could those applications actually be better if done
in a more suitable language?  Probably.  Are they doing the task
that was needed to be done.  Yes.  One of the big things I have
argued about (academically) was efficiency.  The answer I usually
get is the state of technology today does not require efficiency
in programs.  People love to complain about MS and Bloatware but
when it comes right down to it no one really cares and they continue
to use the bloated and inefficient software.

> 
> Who gets to decide?
> 

Like for everything else in life, at least for the moment, the
individual gets to decide.  Lets hope it stays that way.

bill