[Info-vax] Userland programming languages on VMS.

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 2/1/22 11:45, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 2/1/2022 8:22 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 1/31/22 21:31, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 1/31/2022 8:31 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> On 1/31/22 19:53, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>>
>>>>> We covered this a long time ago. You don't need the RSTS/E sources 
>>>>> to write a
>>>>> new implementation of it. You just need time and energy.
>>>
>>> I really have to wonder, would anyone actually devote the time and 
>>> resources
>>> to re-implement RSTS/E?
>>
>> I would.  :-)
> 
> I'm not convinced, it would not be a trivial effort.

Guess I would have to give up some of the time I currently devote
to writing things for Rosetta Code.  :-)

> 
>>> What hardware would one choose?
>>
>> Ideally, I would make it portable but initially probably PC Class
>> machines and a certain 6809 I have.
> 
> So some more hackery to run on x86, huh?  Why not ARM?

If I wanted others to be able to look at what I have done it would
have to be something others might have.  Because the only Arm I have
at the moment is the Pi 1 Model B.  I  have no development tools for
it and I am rapidly finding out that contrary to the idea that things
will live forever on the web most software that ran on these boxes
has vanished.

> 
>>> What implementation language would one choose?
>>
>> Probably C as that is the language I am most likely to find compilers
>> for on different machines.
> 
> C is so disgusting. 

Personal opinion.  I have been doing C for over 40 years and have
never had a problem with it.


>                      Ok, I'll admit that it's just about everywhere.

That, too.

> 
>>> What would one do with it?
>>
>> What do Hobbyists today do with any of the old OSes and systems they
>> have.  I would play with it.  I would look into adding networking and
>> probably X11.
> 
> That statement makes me wonder.  To me, "adding networking" isn't an 
> extra, it's part of the OS, and should not be an "add-on".

Sorry, when I said networking I meant usable networking.  RSTS had
DECNET but that is of very limited usefulness today.  There was
never TCP/IP for RSTS that I was aware of and I ran it right up to
the last release.

> 
> Would you be targeting earlier versions, such as V4, V5, or V6, or V10 
> or so?"

I would be targeting what ever version I could get usable data for.
At this point that is none of them.

> 
> With the later versions, DCL is part of RSTS/E, you ready to 
> re-implement DCL, TCP/IP, DECnet, and all the rest that was RSTS/E?

Sure, but there was no TCP/IP.

> 
>> It's all for fun anyway.
> 
> Ok, then perhaps one good way to get started, is to get ahold of some 
> design documentation to allow a decent start.  If I was to consider such 
> an attempt, I'd want a decent design to start with.
> 
> John Santos and EG&H developer ROSS/V way back in the day.  In case you 
> don't know what that is/was, it is software that used the PDP-11 
> compatibility mode to implement a RSTS/E "look and feel" on early VAXs.  
> In order to do so, I'd think that they had a decent design to start 
> with.  Perhaps such documentation still exists.  Perhaps they might 
> provide you with a copy, if you asked nicely.

I doubt any of it still exists and if previous experience holds true
even if it did they would not release it.  RSTS has been dead for how
many years now?  And none of it has been released for any purpose at
all.  I have the two volume Software Resources book for the PDP-11.
I have attempted to track down some of the products in the hope of
actually salvaging something from them.  Most don't exist and of those
that do I have yet to find one that still has copies of that old
software.  I find this to be quite common not only with DEC Stuff
but just about anything old in the IT world.  Frequently upon inquiry
I am told "We threw all that out ages ago."

bill


> 
> Still having "fun" ?????????????????????
> 
>