On 7/15/22 15:05, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 7/15/2022 10:35 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 7/15/22 09:08, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 7/15/2022 9:02 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2022-07-14, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>>> https://vmssoftware.com/about/roadmap/ says:
>>>>>
>>>>> July
>>>>> OpenVMS V9.2 (Limited Production Release)
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Native compilers with LLVM backend code generator:
>>>>>       BLISS, XMACRO, C++ (Phase 1)
>>>>> ...
>>>>> July-November
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Additional native compilers
>>>>>       C, COBOL, and C++ (Phase 2 ? VMS Extensions)
>>>>
>>>> Interesting that COBOL is a way higher priority than Fortran.
>>>
>>> I think that was to be expected.
>>
>> Wonder where all of these VMS COBOL users are.
>
> You do see COBOL questions here occasionally.

Can't remember the last time I saw one.

>
> It seems fair to assume that some portion of VMS
> sites has some business applications in Cobol
> using either index-sequential files or Rdb (or maybe
> even traditional Oracle).

Being how most VMS sites still think of things like the right
tool for the job I would not be surprised. Just wish I could
find one or two of them that needed so COBOL help. I'm really
bored and doing COBOL again is my idea of an ideal job. Heck,
I am even thinking of throwing my hat in the ring with the IRS
again. And that's COBOL 68 on the modern equivalent of the
UNIVAC 1100.

bill
(Yes, they evaluated me about 10 years ago and found me fully
qualified for their positions.)

On Friday, July 15, 2022 at 11:02:30 AM UTC-7, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-07-15, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG <VAX...@SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote:
> >
> > There are hundreds of thousands of lines of Macro32 in just the code that
> > I maintain for several third-party applications. In this day and age, it
> > is highly doubtful that the companies which own these products would pay
> > me to recode it all in your beloved C language and then, go through all of
> > the effort to verify that the rewritten code still performs like the old.
> > I think there was another company that put forth that same argument. If
> > ONLY I could only DECant its name from my vast recollection.
> >
> C isn't beloved by me Brian. It is however the most practical and viable
> language to use in a wide range of applications unfortunately.
>
> As I have made clear _many_ times, I wish something from the Wirth side
> of the language ecosystem had become established as a standard and viable
> alternative to C. Unfortunately, I have to work with what is available
> and viable, not what I would like to use in an ideal world.
> Simon.

I agree with Simon. It's best to think of C as the de facto generic assembly language, except with a worse macro processor than most macro assemblers (including VAX). If your code is well-structured, then it's far more maintainable than when it's not.

My current hobby project is updating the GNV port of bash to, among other features, support real subshells using vfork()/exec() instead of faking out vfork() by saving/restoring the bash state. That requires me to bundle up the state of the parent shell and send it to the child to unflatten in its own memory space. So far I've found that the spaghetti nature of 120,000+ lines of K&R C code with 500+ global variables is nearly as bad as deciphering poorly-structured assembly language, except for the productivity boost of VS Code's outline view (which required me to convert the function prototypes from K&R to ANSI C, because their parser understandably got confused by the K&R prototypes).

Without the outline view, it's easy to miss two or three global variables defined in the middle of the .c file between function definitions, all with the same naming style. I was trying to use vim alone and it just wasn't working. I couldn't keep the entire file in my head at once. I think it's mostly GNU bash's fault for taking on 30 years of technical debt in their codebase, but also partly the fault of the C language for allowing such sloppiness. If they'd written it in Ada 83, they would've at least had package specs and package bodies. Based on some code comments, the original GNU authors were mad that they couldn't write it in Lisp.

The most useful VMS update for me has been the C99 support added in the RTL patch for Alpha and Itanium. It was really demoralizing not to have at least <stdint.h> and the other header files, even though the C compiler supported nearly all of the language features, and it feels funny to suddenly get that support after so many years of not having C99. I don't "love" C99/C11, but they sure beat what came before. And I'll be really happy when I get to use the LLVM C++ compiler on VMS.

Jake

On 7/15/2022 4:12 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 7/15/22 15:05, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 7/15/2022 10:35 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 7/15/22 09:08, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 7/15/2022 9:02 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-07-14, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>>>> https://vmssoftware.com/about/roadmap/ says:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> July
>>>>>> OpenVMS V9.2 (Limited Production Release)
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Native compilers with LLVM backend code generator:
>>>>>>       BLISS, XMACRO, C++ (Phase 1)
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> July-November
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Additional native compilers
>>>>>>       C, COBOL, and C++ (Phase 2 ? VMS Extensions)
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting that COBOL is a way higher priority than Fortran.
>>>>
>>>> I think that was to be expected.
>>>
>>> Wonder where all of these VMS COBOL users are.
>>
>> You do see COBOL questions here occasionally.
>
> Can't remember the last time I saw one.

Google finds 3 question the last 12 months:

Brian June 10th
Jan-Erik September 20th
Jan-Erik August 14th

(I will not insult Brian by calling him a Cobol user,
but there must be some Cobol usage involved)

>> It seems fair to assume that some portion of VMS
>> sites has some business applications in Cobol
>> using either index-sequential files or Rdb (or maybe
>> even traditional Oracle).
>
> Being how most VMS sites still think of things like the right
> tool for the job I would not be surprised.

:-)

Arne

Den 2022-07-15 kl. 22:56, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
> On 7/15/2022 4:12 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 7/15/22 15:05, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 7/15/2022 10:35 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> On 7/15/22 09:08, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 7/15/2022 9:02 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-07-14, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>>>>> https://vmssoftware.com/about/roadmap/ says:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> July
>>>>>>> OpenVMS V9.2 (Limited Production Release)
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Native compilers with LLVM backend code generator:
>>>>>>>       BLISS, XMACRO, C++ (Phase 1)
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> July-November
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Additional native compilers
>>>>>>>       C, COBOL, and C++ (Phase 2 ? VMS Extensions)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting that COBOL is a way higher priority than Fortran.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that was to be expected.
>>>>
>>>> Wonder where all of these VMS COBOL users are.
>>>
>>> You do see COBOL questions here occasionally.
>>
>> Can't remember the last time I saw one.
>
> Google finds 3 question the last 12 months:
>
> Brian June 10th
> Jan-Erik September 20th
> Jan-Erik August 14th
>

Well, Cobol, as a language, is fairly stable and well documented,
so there is usually very few reasons to ask questions about Cobol
as such.

And when it comes to our business logic issues, I see very few
reasons to ask about them here. They are usually not really
strictly Cobol related technical issues anyway...

Jan-Erik.

> (I will not insult Brian by calling him a Cobol user,
> but there must be some Cobol usage involved)
>
>>> It seems fair to assume that some portion of VMS
>>> sites has some business applications in Cobol
>>> using either index-sequential files or Rdb (or maybe
>>> even traditional Oracle).
>>
>> Being how most VMS sites still think of things like the right
>> tool for the job I would not be surprised.
>
> :-)
>
> Arne

In article <tas9oq$34001$2@dont-email.me>,
clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley) wrote:

> I am also aware that the LLVM team keeps moving to the latest
> "shiny" on a regular basis instead of developing LLVM against
> a C++ standard that has been available for a long time. I see
> they are currently at C++14. I wonder when they will be moving
> again. :-)
>
> Update: I had a look. It seems they are already talking about
> moving to C++17 as the new base. :-(

That makes them quite heritage-orientated by the standards of C++
believers. I coordinate platform and build standards across a lot of
software products, and have to cope with people who are so convinced the
latest C++ will produce radical gains that they just assume everyone
agrees with them.

The product I work on is probably going to C++20 next year, and I've just
completed the compiler upgrades for three Windows platforms. I have
another seven assorted platforms to upgrade over the next year.

Incidentally, if you need to track C++ standards, you have to use LLVM,
GCC, or Visual Studio. All the commercial vendors have done this, or
abandoned the idea of keeping up-to-date. If the native C++ for VMS 9.2
uses an up-to-date LLVM, it will be ahead of z/OS and Linux on IBM z, as
well as Solaris (limited to C++11). AIX is up-to-date, with support for
C++20.

John

In article <29ea21d2-6a16-4dfd-b74e-f38a048616a4n@googlegroups.com>,
xyzzy1959@gmail.com (John Reagan) wrote:

> Simon's post made me think. Are you talking about some headers for
> native assembler coding? Like the macros we provide for Macro-32
> coding? No. Nothing like that.
>
> We did create a new SDL backend to create native assembler constants
> and such but nothing like routine prototypes, etc

That was what I was asking, because of the fondness of some posters for
low-ish level programming. Not doing it is perfectly reasonable AFAICS.

John

On Friday, July 15, 2022 at 7:33:46 AM UTC-7, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 7/15/22 09:02, Simon Clubley wrote:
> > On 2022-07-14, Arne Vajhøj <ar...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> >> On 7/14/2022 12:18 PM, John Dallman wrote:
> >>> Announced today:
> >>> <https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2022-07-14-openvms-v92-for-x86-announc
> >>> ed/>
> >>>
> >>> "VSI is also planning on making OpenVMS V9.2 available to hobbyists as
> >>> soon as more native compilers are available."
> >>
> >> https://vmssoftware.com/about/roadmap/ says:
> >>
> >> July
> >> OpenVMS V9.2 (Limited Production Release)
> >> ...
> >> Native compilers with LLVM backend code generator:
> >> BLISS, XMACRO, C++ (Phase 1)
> >> ...
> >> July-November
> >> ...
> >> Additional native compilers
> >> C, COBOL, and C++ (Phase 2 ? VMS Extensions)
> >
> > Interesting that COBOL is a way higher priority than Fortran.
> Might be that the COBOL compiler is easier to port than the Fortran.
> >
> > I assume what that is saying is that many scientific workloads have long
> > moved away from VMS.
> >
> >> ...
> >> November/December
> >> OpenVMS V9.2-1 (Production Release ? x86-64)
> >> ...
> >> OpenJDK for x86
> >> Native compilers with LLVM backend code generator:
> >> Fortran, BASIC, and Pascal
> >>
> >
> > One unknown is Pascal. There's obviously still a demand for it, but how
> > much of the VMS application base still uses Pascal ?
> A bigger question would be other than Dave how much of the VMS
> application base still uses BASIC. :-)
>
> bill

Plus ca chose:
http://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/pdp11/rsx11m_s/RSX11M_V3/Final_Project_Plan_for_RSX-11M_Release_3_197604.pdf

check pg. 6

In article <62d1d488$0$701$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>On 7/15/2022 4:12 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 7/15/22 15:05, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 7/15/2022 10:35 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> On 7/15/22 09:08, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 7/15/2022 9:02 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-07-14, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>>>>> https://vmssoftware.com/about/roadmap/ says:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> July
>>>>>>> OpenVMS V9.2 (Limited Production Release)
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Native compilers with LLVM backend code generator:
>>>>>>>       BLISS, XMACRO, C++ (Phase 1)
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> July-November
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Additional native compilers
>>>>>>>       C, COBOL, and C++ (Phase 2 ? VMS Extensions)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting that COBOL is a way higher priority than Fortran.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that was to be expected.
>>>>
>>>> Wonder where all of these VMS COBOL users are.
>>>
>>> You do see COBOL questions here occasionally.
>>
>> Can't remember the last time I saw one.
>
>Google finds 3 question the last 12 months:
>
>Brian June 10th
>Jan-Erik September 20th
>Jan-Erik August 14th
>
>(I will not insult Brian by calling him a Cobol user,
>but there must be some Cobol usage involved)

Puhleez, COBOL is barely a read-only language. I was only trying to
find how to put a LINK time symbol into what any normal person would
call a *byte- sized* variable but a COBOler would call PIC COMP 9(9)
X(21) XYZZY(WUZNOT) SOMTHING.OR.OTHER. whatever they call a variable
in COBOL so I could tell a customer how to properly invoke $CREPRC.

--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.

On 7/15/2022 10:33 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

> A bigger question would be other than Dave how much of the VMS
> application base still uses BASIC. :-)

A decent indicator of that is Clair Grant saying a while back that there would
always be a Basic compiler on VMS, or, something to that effect. Perhaps he has
a better feel for the user base?

--
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 7/16/22 01:00, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 7/15/2022 10:33 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
>> A bigger question would be other than Dave how much of the VMS
>> application base still uses BASIC.   :-)
>
> A decent indicator of that is Clair Grant saying a while back that there
> would always be a Basic compiler on VMS, or, something to that effect.
> Perhaps he has a better feel for the user base?
>

Probably true, but you have to admit that in a world where COBOL
(the first serious business programming language) is considered
dead and languages like Fortran, Pascal and even Ada don't even
rate a mention in a CS degree program it is pretty funny that a
children's programming language best known for things like the
TRS-80 and VIC-20 is still in use.

bill

On 7/16/2022 8:35 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 7/16/22 01:00, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 7/15/2022 10:33 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>
>>> A bigger question would be other than Dave how much of the VMS
>>> application base still uses BASIC. :-)
>>
>> A decent indicator of that is Clair Grant saying a while back that there would
>> always be a Basic compiler on VMS, or, something to that effect. Perhaps he
>> has a better feel for the user base?
>>
>
> Probably true, but you have to admit that in a world where COBOL
> (the first serious business programming language) is considered
> dead and languages like Fortran, Pascal and even Ada don't even
> rate a mention in a CS degree program it is pretty funny that a
> children's programming language best known for things like the
> TRS-80 and VIC-20 is still in use.
>
> bill

"children's programming language best known for things like the
TRS-80 and VIC-20"

I'm not sure that you intended that to be derogatory, or just your opinion, but
the Basic Plus language produced by EG&H was not the same as some Basic
languages. It had many good features, and, was quite adequate for business
programming, and other uses. The name may be shared, but the implementations
were very different. As DEC Basic, and follow-ons, it has only gotten better.

--
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 7/16/22 09:52, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 7/16/2022 8:35 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 7/16/22 01:00, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 7/15/2022 10:33 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>
>>>> A bigger question would be other than Dave how much of the VMS
>>>> application base still uses BASIC.   :-)
>>>
>>> A decent indicator of that is Clair Grant saying a while back that
>>> there would
>>> always be a Basic compiler on VMS, or, something to that effect.
>>> Perhaps he
>>> has a better feel for the user base?
>>>
>>
>> Probably true, but you have to admit that in a world where COBOL
>> (the first serious business programming language) is considered
>> dead and languages like Fortran, Pascal and even Ada don't even
>> rate a mention in a CS degree program it is pretty funny that a
>> children's programming language best known for things like the
>> TRS-80 and VIC-20 is still in use.
>>
>> bill
>
> "children's programming language best known for things like the
> TRS-80 and VIC-20"
>
> I'm not sure that you intended that to be derogatory, or just your
> opinion, but the Basic Plus language produced by EG&H was not the same
> as some Basic languages.  It had many good features, and, was quite
> adequate for business programming, and other uses.  The name may be
> shared, but the implementations were very different.  As DEC Basic, and
> follow-ons, it has only gotten better.
>

So did COBOL. And what did that get it?

bill

On Sat, 2022-07-16 at 09:52 -0400, Dave Froble wrote:
> "children's programming language best known for things like the
> TRS-80 and VIC-20"
>
> I'm not sure that you intended that to be derogatory, or just your
> opinion, but the Basic Plus language produced by EG&H was not the
> same as some Basic languages.  It had many good features, and, was
> quite adequate for business programming, and other uses.  The name
> may be shared, but the implementations were very different.  As DEC
> Basic, and follow-ons, it has only gotten better.

I'll raise you Visual Basic. It pays my bills. It is a great pity
Microsoft has decided not to keep Visual Basic on a parity with C#.
--
Tactical Nuclear Kittens

On 7/15/2022 10:33 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> A bigger question would be other than Dave how much of the VMS
> application base still uses BASIC.   :-)

We also occasionally see Basic questions here.

John D November 17th
John D November 4th
anonymous October 14th

So I guess the answer is yes.

Arne

On 7/16/2022 8:35 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 7/16/22 01:00, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 7/15/2022 10:33 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> A bigger question would be other than Dave how much of the VMS
>>> application base still uses BASIC.   :-)
>>
>> A decent indicator of that is Clair Grant saying a while back that
>> there would always be a Basic compiler on VMS, or, something to that
>> effect. Perhaps he has a better feel for the user base?
>
> Probably true, but you have to admit that in a world where COBOL
> (the first serious business programming language) is considered
> dead and languages like Fortran, Pascal and even Ada don't even
> rate a mention in a CS degree program it is pretty funny that a
> children's programming language best known for things like the
> TRS-80 and VIC-20 is still in use.

Cobol, Fortran and Pascal are all used.

And so is Basic.

What Basic is most known for probably depends on who you ask.

To me Basic is most known for VB6 and VBS that were two of the
most widely used programming languages back in the late 90's and
early 00's.

Arne

On 7/16/2022 10:02 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 7/16/22 09:52, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 7/16/2022 8:35 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 7/16/22 01:00, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> On 7/15/2022 10:33 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> A bigger question would be other than Dave how much of the VMS
>>>>> application base still uses BASIC.   :-)
>>>>
>>>> A decent indicator of that is Clair Grant saying a while back that
>>>> there would
>>>> always be a Basic compiler on VMS, or, something to that effect.
>>>> Perhaps he
>>>> has a better feel for the user base?
>>>
>>> Probably true, but you have to admit that in a world where COBOL
>>> (the first serious business programming language) is considered
>>> dead and languages like Fortran, Pascal and even Ada don't even
>>> rate a mention in a CS degree program it is pretty funny that a
>>> children's programming language best known for things like the
>>> TRS-80 and VIC-20 is still in use.
>>
>> "children's programming language best known for things like the
>> TRS-80 and VIC-20"
>>
>> I'm not sure that you intended that to be derogatory, or just your
>> opinion, but the Basic Plus language produced by EG&H was not the same
>> as some Basic languages.  It had many good features, and, was quite
>> adequate for business programming, and other uses.  The name may be
>> shared, but the implementations were very different.  As DEC Basic,
>> and follow-ons, it has only gotten better.
>
> So did COBOL.  And what did that get it?

Cobol has evolved original -> 74 -> 85 -> OO additions, but
I think it is still the same language.

The many flavors of Basic share the name and only a very short list
of common syntactical items (*) but are otherwise very different
languages.

From the very primitive Dartmouth Basic, GW-Basic etc. to
pretty advanced VMS Basic, VB6, VBS etc. to full multi-paradigm
VB.NET.

Arne

*) What does all known Basic variants share syntax wise? Case
insensitive, goto, for next loop. Anything else?

On 7/15/2022 7:02 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2022-07-15 kl. 22:56, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
>> On 7/15/2022 4:12 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 7/15/22 15:05, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 7/15/2022 10:35 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> Wonder where all of these VMS COBOL users are.
>>>>
>>>> You do see COBOL questions here occasionally.
>>>
>>> Can't remember the last time I saw one.
>>
>> Google finds 3 question the last 12 months:
>>
>> Brian June 10th
>> Jan-Erik September 20th
>> Jan-Erik August 14th
>>
>
> Well, Cobol, as a language, is fairly stable and well documented,
> so there is usually very few reasons to ask questions about Cobol
> as such.

I don't think that makes Cobol unique in the VMS world.

VMS Cobol does not support newer standards - and supposedly nobody
use the newer standards anyway.

VMS Fortran and VMS C++ does not support newer standards - but those
newer standards are used on other platforms.

VMS Pascal and VMS Basic are very much VMS specific languages, but
no dramatic changes the last 25 years.

VMS C is the only "hot topic" due to the C99 features phase in,
the 32 bit vs 64 bit pointers issue etc..

Arne

On 7/16/22 19:46, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 7/15/2022 7:02 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>> Den 2022-07-15 kl. 22:56, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
>>> On 7/15/2022 4:12 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> On 7/15/22 15:05, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 7/15/2022 10:35 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>> Wonder where all of these VMS COBOL users are.
>>>>>
>>>>> You do see COBOL questions here occasionally.
>>>>
>>>> Can't remember the last time I saw one.
>>>
>>> Google finds 3 question the last 12 months:
>>>
>>> Brian June 10th
>>> Jan-Erik September 20th
>>> Jan-Erik August 14th
>>>
>>
>> Well, Cobol, as a language, is fairly stable and well documented,
>> so there is usually very few reasons to ask questions about Cobol
>> as such.
>
> I don't think that makes Cobol unique in the VMS world.
>
> VMS Cobol does not support newer standards - and supposedly nobody
> use the newer standards anyway.

Define "newer standards". If you mean OO you are probably right.
But there were a lot of other things added in the newer standards
that are used all the time.

And even the OO is used, but not as often as some would have liked.

bill

On 7/16/22 19:37, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 7/16/2022 10:02 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 7/16/22 09:52, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 7/16/2022 8:35 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> On 7/16/22 01:00, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>> On 7/15/2022 10:33 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>> A bigger question would be other than Dave how much of the VMS
>>>>>> application base still uses BASIC.   :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> A decent indicator of that is Clair Grant saying a while back that
>>>>> there would
>>>>> always be a Basic compiler on VMS, or, something to that effect.
>>>>> Perhaps he
>>>>> has a better feel for the user base?
>>>>
>>>> Probably true, but you have to admit that in a world where COBOL
>>>> (the first serious business programming language) is considered
>>>> dead and languages like Fortran, Pascal and even Ada don't even
>>>> rate a mention in a CS degree program it is pretty funny that a
>>>> children's programming language best known for things like the
>>>> TRS-80 and VIC-20 is still in use.
>>>
>>> "children's programming language best known for things like the
>>> TRS-80 and VIC-20"
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that you intended that to be derogatory, or just your
>>> opinion, but the Basic Plus language produced by EG&H was not the
>>> same as some Basic languages.  It had many good features, and, was
>>> quite adequate for business programming, and other uses.  The name
>>> may be shared, but the implementations were very different.  As DEC
>>> Basic, and follow-ons, it has only gotten better.
>>
>> So did COBOL.  And what did that get it?
>
> Cobol has evolved original -> 74 -> 85 -> OO additions, but
> I think it is still the same language.

Not once you start using the OO stuff. :-)

>
> The many flavors of Basic share the name and only a very short list
> of common  syntactical items (*) but are otherwise very different
> languages.
>
> From the very primitive Dartmouth Basic, GW-Basic etc. to
> pretty advanced VMS Basic, VB6, VBS etc. to full multi-paradigm
> VB.NET.

Don't forget Basci09. Probably one of the better dialects.

>
> Arne
>
> *) What does all known Basic variants share syntax wise? Case
>    insensitive, goto, for next loop. Anything else?

case insensitive in reserved words, but I am not sure all of
them go beyond that.

bwBASIC: 10 ask = 10
bwBASIC: 20 ASK = 20
bwBASIC: 30 print ASK, ask
bwBASIC: 99 end
bwBASIC: run
20 10
bwBASIC:

I think the same applies to Basic09 but I don't have a system
available at the moment to test it.

bill

On 17/07/2022 7:37 am, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 7/16/2022 10:02 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 7/16/22 09:52, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 7/16/2022 8:35 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> On 7/16/22 01:00, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>> On 7/15/2022 10:33 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>> A bigger question would be other than Dave how much of the
>>>>>> VMS application base still uses BASIC. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> A decent indicator of that is Clair Grant saying a while back
>>>>> that there would always be a Basic compiler on VMS, or,
>>>>> something to that effect. Perhaps he has a better feel for
>>>>> the user base?
>>>>
>>>> Probably true, but you have to admit that in a world where
>>>> COBOL (the first serious business programming language) is
>>>> considered dead and languages like Fortran, Pascal and even Ada
>>>> don't even rate a mention in a CS degree program it is pretty
>>>> funny that a children's programming language best known for
>>>> things like the TRS-80 and VIC-20 is still in use.
>>>
>>> "children's programming language best known for things like the
>>> TRS-80 and VIC-20"
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that you intended that to be derogatory, or just
>>> your opinion, but the Basic Plus language produced by EG&H was
>>> not the same as some Basic languages. It had many good features,
>>> and, was quite adequate for business programming, and other uses.
>>> The name may be shared, but the implementations were very
>>> different. As DEC Basic, and follow-ons, it has only gotten
>>> better.
>>
>> So did COBOL. And what did that get it?
>
> Cobol has evolved original -> 74 -> 85 -> OO additions, but I think
> it is still the same language.
>
> The many flavors of Basic share the name and only a very short list
> of common syntactical items (*) but are otherwise very different
> languages.
>
> From the very primitive Dartmouth Basic, GW-Basic etc. to pretty
> advanced VMS Basic, VB6, VBS etc. to full multi-paradigm VB.NET.
>
> Arne
>
> *) What does all known Basic variants share syntax wise? Case
> insensitive, goto, for next loop. Anything else?
>
>

Nested Programs. GLOBAL variables. COMMON routines. DBMS. EVALUATE.

Den 2022-07-17 kl. 02:14, skrev Bill Gunshannon:
> On 7/16/22 19:37, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 7/16/2022 10:02 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 7/16/22 09:52, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> On 7/16/2022 8:35 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/16/22 01:00, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/15/2022 10:33 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>>> A bigger question would be other than Dave how much of the VMS
>>>>>>> application base still uses BASIC.   :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A decent indicator of that is Clair Grant saying a while back that
>>>>>> there would
>>>>>> always be a Basic compiler on VMS, or, something to that effect.
>>>>>> Perhaps he
>>>>>> has a better feel for the user base?
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably true, but you have to admit that in a world where COBOL
>>>>> (the first serious business programming language) is considered
>>>>> dead and languages like Fortran, Pascal and even Ada don't even
>>>>> rate a mention in a CS degree program it is pretty funny that a
>>>>> children's programming language best known for things like the
>>>>> TRS-80 and VIC-20 is still in use.
>>>>
>>>> "children's programming language best known for things like the
>>>> TRS-80 and VIC-20"
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure that you intended that to be derogatory, or just your
>>>> opinion, but the Basic Plus language produced by EG&H was not the same
>>>> as some Basic languages.  It had many good features, and, was quite
>>>> adequate for business programming, and other uses.  The name may be
>>>> shared, but the implementations were very different.  As DEC Basic, and
>>>> follow-ons, it has only gotten better.
>>>
>>> So did COBOL.  And what did that get it?
>>
>> Cobol has evolved original -> 74 -> 85 -> OO additions, but
>> I think it is still the same language.
>
> Not once you start using the OO stuff.   :-)
>
>>
>> The many flavors of Basic share the name and only a very short list
>> of common  syntactical items (*) but are otherwise very different
>> languages.
>>
>>  From the very primitive Dartmouth Basic, GW-Basic etc. to
>> pretty advanced VMS Basic, VB6, VBS etc. to full multi-paradigm
>> VB.NET.
>
> Don't forget Basci09.  Probably one of the better dialects.
>
>>
>> Arne
>>
>> *) What does all known Basic variants share syntax wise? Case
>>     insensitive, goto, for next loop. Anything else?
>
> case insensitive in reserved words, but I am not sure all of
> them go beyond that.
>
> bwBASIC: 10 ask = 10
> bwBASIC: 20 ASK = 20
> bwBASIC: 30 print ASK, ask
> bwBASIC: 99 end
> bwBASIC: run
>  20           10
> bwBASIC:
>
>
> I think the same applies to Basic09 but I don't have a system
> available at the moment to test it.
>
> bill

Had to look *that* up...
https://sourceforge.net/projects/bwbasic/

On 7/17/22 07:17, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2022-07-17 kl. 02:14, skrev Bill Gunshannon:
>> On 7/16/22 19:37, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 7/16/2022 10:02 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> On 7/16/22 09:52, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>> On 7/16/2022 8:35 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/16/22 01:00, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/15/2022 10:33 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>>>> A bigger question would be other than Dave how much of the VMS
>>>>>>>> application base still uses BASIC.   :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A decent indicator of that is Clair Grant saying a while back
>>>>>>> that there would
>>>>>>> always be a Basic compiler on VMS, or, something to that effect.
>>>>>>> Perhaps he
>>>>>>> has a better feel for the user base?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably true, but you have to admit that in a world where COBOL
>>>>>> (the first serious business programming language) is considered
>>>>>> dead and languages like Fortran, Pascal and even Ada don't even
>>>>>> rate a mention in a CS degree program it is pretty funny that a
>>>>>> children's programming language best known for things like the
>>>>>> TRS-80 and VIC-20 is still in use.
>>>>>
>>>>> "children's programming language best known for things like the
>>>>> TRS-80 and VIC-20"
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure that you intended that to be derogatory, or just your
>>>>> opinion, but the Basic Plus language produced by EG&H was not the
>>>>> same as some Basic languages.  It had many good features, and, was
>>>>> quite adequate for business programming, and other uses.  The name
>>>>> may be shared, but the implementations were very different.  As DEC
>>>>> Basic, and follow-ons, it has only gotten better.
>>>>
>>>> So did COBOL.  And what did that get it?
>>>
>>> Cobol has evolved original -> 74 -> 85 -> OO additions, but
>>> I think it is still the same language.
>>
>> Not once you start using the OO stuff.   :-)
>>
>>>
>>> The many flavors of Basic share the name and only a very short list
>>> of common  syntactical items (*) but are otherwise very different
>>> languages.
>>>
>>>  From the very primitive Dartmouth Basic, GW-Basic etc. to
>>> pretty advanced VMS Basic, VB6, VBS etc. to full multi-paradigm
>>> VB.NET.
>>
>> Don't forget Basci09.  Probably one of the better dialects.
>>
>>>
>>> Arne
>>>
>>> *) What does all known Basic variants share syntax wise? Case
>>>     insensitive, goto, for next loop. Anything else?
>>
>> case insensitive in reserved words, but I am not sure all of
>> them go beyond that.
>>
>> bwBASIC: 10 ask = 10
>> bwBASIC: 20 ASK = 20
>> bwBASIC: 30 print ASK, ask
>> bwBASIC: 99 end
>> bwBASIC: run
>>   20           10
>> bwBASIC:
>>
>>
>> I think the same applies to Basic09 but I don't have a system
>> available at the moment to test it.
>>
>> bill
>
> Had to look *that* up...
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/bwbasic/
>

It's YAVB....

But I think it claims to be ANSI compliant so that might
mean something.

bill

On 7/16/2022 8:06 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 7/16/22 19:46, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 7/15/2022 7:02 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>>> Den 2022-07-15 kl. 22:56, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
>>>> On 7/15/2022 4:12 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/15/22 15:05, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/15/2022 10:35 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>>> Wonder where all of these VMS COBOL users are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You do see COBOL questions here occasionally.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't remember the last time I saw one.
>>>>
>>>> Google finds 3 question the last 12 months:
>>>>
>>>> Brian June 10th
>>>> Jan-Erik September 20th
>>>> Jan-Erik August 14th
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, Cobol, as a language, is fairly stable and well documented,
>>> so there is usually very few reasons to ask questions about Cobol
>>> as such.
>>
>> I don't think that makes Cobol unique in the VMS world.
>>
>> VMS Cobol does not support newer standards - and supposedly nobody
>> use the newer standards anyway.
>
> Define "newer standards".

2002 and 2014.

>   If you mean OO you are probably right.
> But there were a lot of other things added in the newer standards
> that are used all the time.
>
> And even the OO is used, but not as often as some would have liked.

Besides OO then I believe the biggest items are
pointer and dynamic allocation/freeing, XML support
and collection classes.

Are they widely used?

Arne

On 2022-07-16, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>
> VMS Fortran and VMS C++ does not support newer standards - but those
> newer standards are used on other platforms.
>

Devil's Advocate time: Does adding new standards to a language sometimes
make it so complex that it's better to start over with a new language
that covers the same usage cases ?

> VMS Pascal and VMS Basic are very much VMS specific languages, but
> no dramatic changes the last 25 years.
>
> VMS C is the only "hot topic" due to the C99 features phase in,
> the 32 bit vs 64 bit pointers issue etc..
>

32-bit versus 64-bit pointers on VMS are not just a C issue. :-)

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 2022-07-15, Jake Hamby <jake.hamby@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My current hobby project is updating the GNV port of bash to, among other features, support real subshells using vfork()/exec() instead of faking out vfork() by saving/restoring the bash state. That requires me to bundle up the state of the parent shell and send it to the child to unflatten in its own memory space. So far I've found that the spaghetti nature of 120,000+ lines of K&R C code with 500+ global variables is nearly as bad as deciphering poorly-structured assembly language, except for the productivity boost of VS Code's outline view (which required me to convert the function prototypes from K&R to ANSI C, because their parser understandably got confused by the K&R prototypes).
>

It's a pity that C wasn't designed as a module-based language. :-(

Even with all of C's other flaws intact, this one design decision would
have saved so much grief over the years.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.