[Info-vax] Userland programming languages on VMS.

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 2/1/22 12:33, Dave Froble wrote:
> 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.

Serious?  None of this is serious.  I'm retired with too much time
on my hands.  It would be fun to do.  I may contact him but I don't
like annoying other people for my pet projects.

> 
> 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?

Well, personally, I never used BASIC other than maybe to play
around.  You seem to think I am looking at a commercially viable
product here.  It's just for fun.  I'll probably die long before
I had more than a bootable kernel if I even got that far.

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


bill