[Info-vax] CRTL and RMS vs SSIO

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 10/12/2021 2:52 PM, David Jones wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 1:29:57 PM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> The RMS API is centered around FAB and RAB blocks.
>>
>> But that concept is not Macro-32 centric at all. They are just
>> records/structs. That is common in all procedural languages
>> including Pascal, C, Cobol etc..
>>
>> In the last 30 years they would have been made classes with
>> private fields and public accessor methods (C++, Java, C# etc.).
>> But still basically the same concept.
> 
> The RMS system services take 3 arguments, 2 of them are optional AST routines.
> You'd want to re-evaluate whether you stick with ASTs, provide some other
> synchronization object (e.g. completion queues), or do away with asynchronous
> operation altogether.

The world has moved on a little bit the last 30-40 years.

The FAB/RAB block would be an instance of a FAB/RAB class
today.

The AST routines would likely be replaced by a slightly different
way to do asynchronous - maybe the async/await concept that
C# made popular.

But I think asynchronous would be kept. It is considered
in fashion today.

Arne