[Info-vax] Userland programming languages on VMS.

[Dave Froble]

On 2/1/2022 12:27 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 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.

Well, that tells me that you're not serious.  I just gave you a pointer to some 
people who know RSTS rather well.  If you're not willing to contact John, then 
you're not serious.

Another thing I thought about, two actually.

RSTS/E had the RSX stuff that allowed for BP2, and other things.  You gonna 
re-implement the RSX stuff?

Can it really be RSTS/E without Basic+?  You gonna re-implement the language?

> 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" ?????????????????????
>>
>>
>


-- 
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