On 10/14/2021 3:42 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 10/14/2021 2:36 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 10/14/2021 2:06 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> BTW, Basic really does like spewing its special characters onto the
>>> end of variable references. :-)

> Basic can be very happy to let the programmer specify that all variables
> must be declared.  Then variable names can be whatever they are declared
> to be.  Frankly, I see no decent reason to do all that typing when the
> compiler can do a much better job than any programmer.  One just needs to
> give it some hints.  I learned the variable suffex stuff long ago, and
> it's just natural to me.  Just as conventions in another language might
> be natural to someone used to that language.

Having variable type determined by variable name is definitely
out of fashion. The only other language i know doing that is
Fortran (Fortran is first letter while Basic is suffix but
same concept).

But type inference is definitely in fashion.

var v = 123

instead of:

int v = 123

and:

var v = "ABC"

instead of:

String v = "ABC"

And for those that does not use languages less than 30 years
old: var means "dear compiler give this variable type based on
right hand side" not "I want to be able to assign anything to this
variable".

Arne

On 10/14/2021 3:36 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 10/14/2021 2:06 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> BTW, Basic really does like spewing its special characters onto the
>> end of variable references. :-)
>
> And other languages don't have such quirks?

Most does not.

Fortran use variable names for implicit typing as well.

But there are some other quirk likes.

PHP insist on all variable names to start with $.

Most newer languages allow Unicode in variable names, which
can also create some confusion.

> Did I mention I don't like C, and most likely would not like Ada?

What languages do you like besides Basic?

Arne

On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 9:34:14 PM UTC+13, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2021-10-14 kl. 02:30, skrev Lawrence D’Oliveiro:
>> On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 4:10:52 AM UTC+13, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> Also, I've noticed that doing some things with SQL can be much more complex.
>>
>> Only if you have to do them in COBOL!
>>
> Doesn't really matter what language you use EXEC SQL and END EXEC in,
> the SQL within that block looks the same.
There are some kinds of SQL you can only realistically do in a dynamic language. For example:
    sort = \
        {
            "id" : "id",
            "name" : "name",
            "when_saved" : "timestamp_ns",
        }.get(opts.get("sort"), "name")
    ...
    for entry in db_iter \
      (
        db,
        "select id, name, description, timestamp_ns from materials order by %s" % sort
      ) \
    :
        ...

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 8:37:36 AM UTC+13, Dave Froble wrote:
> There are perfectly logical uses for both GoSub and GoTo. Such as just
> throwing out the anchor if fatal errors occur.

Python manages that without labels and gotos. The relevant calls will raise the relevant exceptions if unexpected situations occur, and all your script has to do is not even bother to deal with them, and it will abort with a nice, informative error message, pointing to the line where the error occurred, without extra work on your part.

> Got to ask, just what do you think a NEXT, WHILE_END, and such statements do?
> Sure looks like another form of GoTo to me.

Think of them as “spaghetti-proof” transfers of control.

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 12:20:18 PM UTC+13, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> PHP insist on all variable names to start with $.

I never understood the reason for that. My first impression of PHP was they looked at Perl and tried to copy it, without really understanding how it worked.

Nowadays, they have moved on to copying Python, and again, they don’t really understand how it works.

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 7:32:33 AM UTC+13, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-10-13, Lawrence D?Oliveiro <lawren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 7:14:08 AM UTC+13, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>
>>> Microkernels have moved on and microkernels have massive security advantages.
>>
>> Counterexample: Intel’s infamous Management Engine that exerts total control
>> over its CPUs, that the OS cannot bypass, runs microkernel-based MINIX, and
>> turned out to have massive security holes in it.
>>
> Wasn't that due to the applications running on top of Minix instead of
> Minix itself ?
>
> The massive advantage of microkernels is that code which would otherwise
> be in a shared fully privileged kernel address space is in fact isolated
> in its own address space with far fewer access rights to other parts of
> the system.

But these separate processes are still able to compromise system security, as happened with the Intel MINIX example? So where exactly is the “massive advantage” in security?

>> The fact that DCL runs in supervisor mode is an internal implementation matter.
>> It could be replaced by a thread or an entirely separate process (even a privileged
>> one), for example, and what difference would that make to user-mode code?
>>
> Unlike the Unix shells you are clearly thinking of, DCL provides services
> to a program directly while the program is running.

The same thing can be done from a separate thread or process.

>> ... as far as I know there is no user-controlled code in DCL.
>
> _Normally_, there isn't. :-)
>
> The point of my comments is that DCL needs to operate in a more
> privileged environment than is available to user-mode code.

I don’t understand why, unless it is to get around limitations of the current VMS design. Once you free yourself from that, you no longer need to structure your solutions the same way.

Replace “DCL” with “process that is longer-lived than most user programs” and you will see what I mean. In the *nix world, we just call that a “shell”.

> In the current design, you can't fold user-mode code into DCL's
> supervisor mode or move DCL into user mode without having a total
> breakdown in system security, hence you need an extra mode other
> than the normal KU modes to run DCL in.

Scrap that current design, then.

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 5:48:48 AM UTC+13, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> Going to the effort of swapping a ~forty year old monolithic kernel for
> a ~thirty year old monolithic kernel while preparing for next-decade
> system hardware architecture designs seems... unwise.

The difference being that forty-year-old kernel was starting to look ancient at just ten years after its birth, while the thirty-year-old one was built on principles that had already been shown to stand the test of time back then, and even more so now.

Wasn’t somebody mentioning NetBSD at one point? Remember, the BSDs are almost as old as VMS.

> Unwise given the IP lawyers necessarily get involved with discussions
> re-using a GPL kernel and/or re-using drivers for a closed-source
> product and particularly where the vendor reportedly has no rights to
> release much of the closed source.

Android seems to manage that OK. And not just for Google, but for all the makers of Android-based hardware and software.

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:39:12 AM UTC+13, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
> On 10/13/2021 8:43 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> The fact that DCL runs in supervisor mode is an internal
>> implementation matter. It could be replaced by a thread or an
>> entirely separate process (even a privileged one), for example, and
>> what difference would that make to user-mode code?
>
> If the program sets symbols or define logicals in process
> table then it makes a difference.

If you replace “DCL” with a “separate process”, your symbol/logical name API can be implemented with IPC calls easily enough. You could directly use PF_UNIX sockets, or D-Bus if you want a higher-level, more object-based transport. Or a shared-memory segment if you need higher performance (which I doubt).

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 1:15:31 AM UTC+13, chris wrote:
> Comparing Apples to Oranges is rarely productive...

Because of course the rise of the automobile made no difference to the market for buggy whips, did it ...

On 10/14/2021 8:47 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 5:48:48 AM UTC+13, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>> Unwise given the IP lawyers necessarily get involved with discussions
>> re-using a GPL kernel and/or re-using drivers for a closed-source
>> product and particularly where the vendor reportedly has no rights to
>> release much of the closed source.
>
> Android seems to manage that OK. And not just for Google, but for all the makers of Android-based hardware and software.

In the Android world that is generally manged by putting everything
kernel under GPL and only license userland stuff different (Apache
or proprietary).

GPL is GPL. A driver either get under GPL or they have to do the
shim trick to decouple the core driver from kernel.

Arne

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 12:55:18 AM UTC+13, chris wrote:
>
> On 10/14/21 01:29, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> There are no such things as “power grabs” in Free software.
>
> Perhaps, but the amount of money and effort that Red Hat (now owned
> by IBM btw) put into Linux means they have disproportionate amount of
> influence in the direction of the project.

If you want to look at which is the single biggest company that is contributing to Linux, that would have to be Microsoft.

Which is the most popular Linux distro in the world today? Hard to tell, but it isn’t anything from Red Hat. Ubuntu most likely, and they are certainly getting very cosy with Microsoft.

> They are not the only
> ones, but once big business get involved, then commercial interests,
> rather than pursuit of excellence, will will always take precedence.

Again, you don’t understand the economics of how Free software works. If you don’t like the way a project is going, you are free to fork the source and take it in a different direction. As Devuan did with Debian.

Linux has always been about the pursuit of excellence: Linus Torvalds and his trusted lieutenants see to that. Look at his reception to the idea of using Rust to implement parts of the kernel.

> Well, you are free to choose.

And so are you.

> I can understand the initial motivation
> for systemd, in terms of orderly system service and process startup,
> just think the approach was wrong.

Fine. Show us a better approach. Enough with the hand-waving arguments! BPut your coding skills where your mouth is, as it were.

> Good design is lightweight, whereas Linux is starting to sink under the
> weight of it's own complexity.

And yet Linux is still able to run happily on lightweight hardware. How lightweight? How about the original generation 1, single-core Raspberry π? How about the elderly Motorola 68K architecture, which is still in the source tree?

> ... and you can easily display entries in any
>> timezone, just by setting “TZ=«timezone»” at the front of the command.
>>>
> All machines here are set to UTC, so the point is ?.

That you can easily display entries in any timezone, just by setting “TZ=«timezone»” at the front of the command.

>>> Linux is far too bloated and all things to all men these days, rather than a
>>> technically efficient OS.
>>
>> I don’t why you say that, when it has always been possible to build custom kernels
>> that include only the features that you need. Remember, it runs happily on something
>> as low-powered as the Raspberry π.
> >
> Well, do occasionally rebuild kernels, but an OS is here primarily to
> enable productive work, not spend all day configuring or debugging it.

In other words, you prefer to complain rather than to take effective action about it.

>> Seems like their development is mainly dominated by one company these days, with
>> perhaps a less-than-admirable attitude to code quality and
>> security<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/buffer-overruns-license-violations-and-bad-code-freebsd-13s-close-call/> ...
>
> Not at all. Try reading the whole article, rather than cherry
> picking :-). Had you done so, you would realise that the company
> and individual concerned have been dropped from the project.

Umm, Netgate dropped from FreeBSD? But they practically *are* FreeBSD. And which “individual”? There are a number of individuals associated with the company, who have done dubious things as reported in the article. Which you did read the whole of, didn’t you?

> The fact that FreeBSD is embedded in so much commercial network kit,
> also used by Apple OSX in the past, speaks volumes.

I guess “past” being the operative word here. Apple diverged from BSD a long time ago, and the non-copyleft licence allows them to go on taking without giving back.

> Designed by engineers, for engineers :-)...

I am told that the pfSense developers have admitted that, were they to start again today, they would use Linux as the basis of their product, not FreeBSD. Back in the day, the BSDs had the high-performance, configurable network stack that others envied, but not any more.

On 10/14/2021 8:50 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:39:12 AM UTC+13, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 10/13/2021 8:43 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>> The fact that DCL runs in supervisor mode is an internal
>>> implementation matter. It could be replaced by a thread or an
>>> entirely separate process (even a privileged one), for example,
>>> and what difference would that make to user-mode code?
>>
>> If the program sets symbols or define logicals in process table
>> then it makes a difference.
>
> If you replace “DCL” with a “separate process”, your symbol/logical
> name API can be implemented with IPC calls easily enough. You could
> directly use PF_UNIX sockets, or D-Bus if you want a higher-level,
> more object-based transport. Or a shared-memory segment if you need
> higher performance (which I doubt).

A lot of things are possible if willing to spend enough
hours on it.

Symbols and process logicals needs to be handled.

Then there is the common area.

And what about programs accessing recall buffer
directly.

And what about CTRL/Y and CONTINUE.

Probably more work than the entire port
of VMS to x86-64.

Arne

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 2:03:27 PM UTC+13, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> In the Android world that is generally manged by putting everything
> kernel under GPL and only license userland stuff different (Apache
> or proprietary).

And VMS can do the same thing. All the compatibility stuff can live in userland.

> GPL is GPL. A driver either get under GPL or they have to do the
> shim trick to decouple the core driver from kernel.

As I mentioned, Linux already has drivers for all the usual enterprise-class hardware, that you can take advantage of, so you don’t need to (re)write those.

On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 7:35:20 PM UTC+13, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> The leap seconds are added because the rotation rate of the Earth is
> slowing down ...

Actually it is slowing down on average, but sometimes does speed up. The leap-second system also has provision for _subtracting_ a whole second (so 23:59:58 gets followed by 00:00:00, skipping 23:59:59), if that is ever necessary, which it hasn’t been so far.

> Basically, the tides slow the Earth down. As a result, the
> Moon recedes from the Earth.

It is the Moon that causes the tides. And the interaction between the tidal pull and the non-uniform density of the Earth that slows down the rotation..

Tides work both ways (as does gravity in general). The Earth’s pull on the Moon caused the same thing to happen to the Moon, only it happened much sooner.

And tides can have some dramatic effects: Io, the Jovian satellite and the most volcanically-active body in the solar system, should have lost all its internal heat a long time ago. But it gets replenished from the tidal action of mighty Jupiter, orchestrated by perturbations from other Jovian moons..

Why does the Moon recede from the Earth? Probably nothing to do with the tides, everything to do with the fact that the Moon does not actually orbit the Earth.

> Thus, the fact that it appears the same
> size as the Sun is not only a coincidence, but also one that holds now
> but not in general.

Yes. And also the fact that the Moon is so large compared to the Earth. We are really in a binary-planet system, though for some reason astronomers don’t like that description ...

On 10/14/2021 9:11 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 2:03:27 PM UTC+13, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> In the Android world that is generally manged by putting everything
>> kernel under GPL and only license userland stuff different (Apache
>> or proprietary).
>
> And VMS can do the same thing. All the compatibility stuff can live in userland.

I am having a hard time seeing: VMS scheduling, VMS memory protection,
VMS clustering, DECnet, LAT, device handling, ODS-2 & ODS-5,
4 mode logicals etc. being done in all user mode.

Arne

On 10/14/2021 7:20 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 10/14/2021 3:36 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 10/14/2021 2:06 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> BTW, Basic really does like spewing its special characters onto the
>>> end of variable references. :-)
>>
>> And other languages don't have such quirks?
>
> Most does not.
>
> Fortran use variable names for implicit typing as well.
>
> But there are some other quirk likes.
>
> PHP insist on all variable names to start with $.
>
> Most newer languages allow Unicode in variable names, which
> can also create some confusion.
>
>> Did I mention I don't like C, and most likely would not like Ada?
>
> What languages do you like besides Basic?
>
> Arne
>

Basic is the only language I sort of like. I've done others when I needed to.

Basic is the only language my IDE supports.

Haven't found much I cannot do in Basic.

Basic isn't very performance oriented.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 2:36:27 PM UTC+13, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 10/14/2021 9:11 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> And VMS can do the same thing. All the compatibility stuff can live in userland.
>
> I am having a hard time seeing: VMS scheduling, VMS memory protection,
> VMS clustering, ...

None of which are relevant, because Linux already offers better functionality in all those areas.

> DECnet, LAT ...

They can be implemented in userland. If Netatalk can implement AppleTalk entirely in userland, why not them?

> ... device handling ...

Unneeded, since Linux already has the needed device drivers.

> ... ODS-2 & ODS-5 ...

New filesystems don’t have to be implemented as kernel modules, they could be done via FUSE.

> 4 mode logicals etc ...

Name services can be provided via a daemon communicating via, e.g. D-Bus. PF_UNIX sockets allow you to control access based on the credentials of the process you are talking to.

And as a bonus, that daemon can provide something which VMS itself cannot: persistent backup for the logical name database.

Nobody mentioned PPFs? We can handle those, too.

In article <5ee8674d-1925-4e3e-9905-bde643265e37n@googlegroups.com>,
=?UTF-8?Q?Lawrence_D'Oliveiro?= <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 7:35:20 PM UTC+13, Phillip Helbig (undress
> to reply) wrote:
> > The leap seconds are added because the rotation rate of the Earth is
> > slowing down ...
>
> Actually it is slowing down on average, but sometimes does speed up. The le=
> ap-second system also has provision for _subtracting_ a whole second (so 23=
> :59:58 gets followed by 00:00:00, skipping 23:59:59), if that is ever neces=
> sary, which it hasn't been so far.

Yes, on average. I mentioned that it slows down because of leaves on
the trees in northern spring, and speeds up when they fall off in
northern autumn.

> > Basically, the tides slow the Earth down. As a result, the
> > Moon recedes from the Earth.
>
> It is the Moon that causes the tides. And the interaction between the tidal=
> pull and the non-uniform density of the Earth that slows down the rotation=
> ..

Right, though the Sun is responsible to a lesser degree.

> Tides work both ways (as does gravity in general). The Earth's pull=
> on the Moon caused the same thing to happen to the Moon, only it happened =
> much sooner.

Right, which is why the Moon always shows the same face to the Earth.

> Why does the Moon recede from the Earth? Probably nothing to do with the ti=
> des, everything to do with the fact that the Moon does not actually orbit t=
> he Earth.

It recedes to conserve angular momentum, which is necessary because the
Earth's rotation is slowing down because of the tides. Two bodies in
orbit about each other with no tides would not slow down (except due to
gravitational radiation, which in the Earth-Moon system is orders of
magnitude smaller than the measured effects).

> > Thus, the fact that it appears the same
> > size as the Sun is not only a coincidence, but also one that holds now
> > but not in general.
>
> Yes. And also the fact that the Moon is so large compared to the Earth. We =
> are really in a binary-planet system, though for some reason astronomers do=
> n't like that description ...

That depends on the definition of planet.

In article <6168bb2f$0$701$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
=?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:

> On 10/14/2021 3:36 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> > On 10/14/2021 2:06 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> >> BTW, Basic really does like spewing its special characters onto the
> >> end of variable references. :-)
> >
> > And other languages don't have such quirks?
>
> Most does not.
>
> Fortran use variable names for implicit typing as well.

Still there for backward compatibility, but IMPLICIT NONE has been there
in the standard since Fortran 90, and as an extension before, and the
standard IMPLICIT LOGICAL or whatever would have essentially the same
effect and was standard even before IMPLICIT NONE was.

In article <6168b9b9$0$700$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
> On 10/14/2021 3:42 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> > On 10/14/2021 2:36 PM, Arne VajhÞj wrote:
> >> On 10/14/2021 2:06 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> >>> BTW, Basic really does like spewing its special characters onto the
> >>> end of variable references. :-)
>
> > Basic can be very happy to let the programmer specify that all variables
> > must be declared.  Then variable names can be whatever they are declared
> > to be.  Frankly, I see no decent reason to do all that typing when the
> > compiler can do a much better job than any programmer.  One just needs to
> > give it some hints.  I learned the variable suffex stuff long ago, and
> > it's just natural to me.  Just as conventions in another language might
> > be natural to someone used to that language.
>
> Having variable type determined by variable name is definitely
> out of fashion. The only other language i know doing that is
> Fortran (Fortran is first letter while Basic is suffix but
> same concept).
>
> But type inference is definitely in fashion.
>
> var v = 123
>
> instead of:
>
> int v = 123
>
> and:
>
> var v = "ABC"
>
> instead of:
>
> String v = "ABC"
>
> And for those that does not use languages less than 30 years
> old: var means "dear compiler give this variable type based on
> right hand side" not "I want to be able to assign anything to this
> variable".

In Fortran, the implicit typing is only for INTEGER and REAL; it doesn't
work for other data types.

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 7:00:42 PM UTC+13, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> It recedes to conserve angular momentum, which is necessary because the
> Earth's rotation is slowing down because of the tides.

Ah, of course, yes.

>> Yes. And also the fact that the Moon is so large compared to the Earth. We =
>> are really in a binary-planet system, though for some reason astronomers do=
>> n't like that description ...
>
> That depends on the definition of planet.

A major body which orbits the Sun? if Terra is one such, then Luna must be one too.

In article <77d0e992-6ae3-4184-8910-5016b6d23efen@googlegroups.com>,
=?UTF-8?Q?Lawrence_D=E2=80=99Oliveiro?= <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> writes:

> >> Yes. And also the fact that the Moon is so large compared to the Earth. We =
> >> are really in a binary-planet system, though for some reason astronomers do=
> >> n't like that description ...
> >
> > That depends on the definition of planet.
>
> A major body which orbits the Sun? if Terra is one such, then Luna
> must be one too.

It depends on the definition. If size were the only criteria, then one
would have to include some satellites of the Jovian planets as well;
Ganymede and Titan are larger than Mercury. Of course, the Moon is
relatively much larger compared to the Earth, and also larger than all
asteroids and other satellites except Titan and three of the Galilean
satellites. The point about which both orbit is inside the Earth, which
emphasizes the Earth being the main planet, but the orbit of the Moon is
always concave relative to the Sun, which emphasizes the independence of
the Moon. So it depends on the definition. The current definition,
which demoted Pluto, is that it is a body which dominates its orbit, so
that applies to the Earth and not to the Moon.

On 10/15/2021 2:02 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <6168bb2f$0$701$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
> =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>
>> On 10/14/2021 3:36 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2021 2:06 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> BTW, Basic really does like spewing its special characters onto the
>>>> end of variable references. :-)
>>>
>>> And other languages don't have such quirks?
>>
>> Most does not.
>>
>> Fortran use variable names for implicit typing as well.
>
> Still there for backward compatibility, but IMPLICIT NONE has been there
> in the standard since Fortran 90, and as an extension before, and the
> standard IMPLICIT LOGICAL or whatever would have essentially the same
> effect and was standard even before IMPLICIT NONE was.

And VMS Basic got:

OPTION TYPE = EXPLICIT

for the same.

Arne

On 10/15/2021 2:03 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <6168b9b9$0$700$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>> On 10/14/2021 3:42 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2021 2:36 PM, Arne VajhÞj wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2021 2:06 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>> BTW, Basic really does like spewing its special characters onto the
>>>>> end of variable references. :-)
>>
>>> Basic can be very happy to let the programmer specify that all variables
>>> must be declared.  Then variable names can be whatever they are declared
>>> to be.  Frankly, I see no decent reason to do all that typing when the
>>> compiler can do a much better job than any programmer.  One just needs to
>>> give it some hints.  I learned the variable suffex stuff long ago, and
>>> it's just natural to me.  Just as conventions in another language might
>>> be natural to someone used to that language.
>>
>> Having variable type determined by variable name is definitely
>> out of fashion. The only other language i know doing that is
>> Fortran (Fortran is first letter while Basic is suffix but
>> same concept).

> In Fortran, the implicit typing is only for INTEGER and REAL; it doesn't
> work for other data types.

In VMS Basic suffix only works for integer and string.

Arne

On 10/15/2021 3:03 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 7:00:42 PM UTC+13, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>> It recedes to conserve angular momentum, which is necessary because the
>> Earth's rotation is slowing down because of the tides.
>
> Ah, of course, yes.
>
>>> Yes. And also the fact that the Moon is so large compared to the Earth. We =
>>> are really in a binary-planet system, though for some reason astronomers do=
>>> n't like that description ...
>>
>> That depends on the definition of planet.
>
> A major body which orbits the Sun? if Terra is one such, then Luna must be one too.
>

Well if one wants to be a bit more accurate, Earth and Luna is a binary system orbiting
a common center and that binary system is then orbiting (sort of, many variables) the
local star, which itself is also moving. Trying to be precise about things is sort of
tough, as all is moving relative to some supposed location which might be called the
center of the universe. It's enough to make your brain hurt just trying to imagine
it all.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486