[Info-vax] Very simple DCL question

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2023-01-01 18:02:17 +0000, Arne Vajhj said:

> On the other hand then breaking compatibility also requires a justification.

Arguably, you have that backwards. But then, DEC arguably had that 
backwards, too. The justification is required for keeping the old and 
under- or un-maintained code around. Those sites are variously not 
upgrading, and are not investing. And when or if they do upgrade, make 
them set compatibility where and as needed. Make them aware of where 
their code will break in the future too, when or if deprecation and 
removal is planned. Let the under- or un-maintained sites LTS 
themselves for a decade or so, and with best-effort support. And move 
on.

Don't make things harder for updates and for new development. Both for 
users, and for new VSI work. Shorter-term thinking, versus longer-term 
thinking. Making user app updates harder and new user app work harder 
is The Bad Place. For everybody.

And because I have to explicitly state this each time because nuance is 
not expected or assumed, I am not suggesting breaking stuff without 
very good reason. But if there are good reasons, break it, and provide 
a path for existing apps and code to get there over the next ~decade. 
Even Microsoft Windows breaks compatibility, on occasion.

And I've yet to see any existing DCL break with the advent of P9 to 
P16. Outside of maybe some code that got Really Creative to work around 
the lack of P9 to P16, that is. I have seen CSV-ified parameters, 
passing arguments by file, passing by symbol and logical names, and 
other uglies. But yes, DCL... has issues.

Whether VSI has the staff, the budget, and the development horizon for 
longer-term investments and longer-term work? Operating systems are big 
and complex and expensive, and products and services and expectations 
are all evolving. The world of 1978 just doesn't exist any more.



-- 
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC