[Info-vax] BASIC and AST routines

[Dave Froble]

On 11/23/2021 1:37 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-11-22, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG <VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote:
>> In article <sngp1p$aud$2 at dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>>> On 2021-11-19, Dave Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to confess to curiosity.  Why are R0, R1, SP, and PC passed to an AST
>>>> routine?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because it's another example of VMS functionality being implemented
>>> at way too low an abstraction level because of the need to support
>>> Macro-32 as an application programming language.
>>
>> BULLSHIT!  If you believe that's true, please provide an illustrating example.
>> I'll be waiting...
>>
>
> That VMS API passes in a stack pointer, a PC and what were originally
> two architecture-specific registers.
>
> That kind of information simply would not be exposed at application
> code level in a modern version of that API as it would (rightly) be
> treated as an implementation specific detail that would be handled
> by the compiler.
>
> That information is only needed because the lowest supported application
> language on VMS is Macro-32 and not C (or another comparable low-level
> language).
>
> Simon.
>

Ok, but, what is the harm?

Perhaps there are uses for that data.  If one doesn't need to use them, ignore 
them.  No blood, no foul.

Just because something is not "how things should be according to Simon" doesn't 
necessarily make that something bad.

Perhaps when using Macro-32 there might be some use.  Yes, Macro-32 as a 
compiler language sort of sucks.  But what's your alternative?  Re-write 
everything each year, even if it's working as designed and needed?

-- 
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