Re: In the Shallow End

"GreyCloud" <mist@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Q_qdnQwj8ZBja0LZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dan Johnson wrote:
If you say so. I haven't read them. But I find your account
very vague; I still don't understand what about them made
them so good.

When a document claims how an API is supposed to be used and then gives
the user examples that actually work, that is very good docs.
I've seen MS docs where a few APIs were documented but when used got the
old not supported error message.
DEC docs were very accurate and never misleading.

You are still being quite vague.

I may say that I find that MS docs are quite accurate, and
they do specify which platforms each API is implemented
for. And their samples seem to work, such as I've tried.

[snip]
What simple functions are those?

Simple screen management functions, to name one.

Windows offers lots of this stuff. Indeed, it's one of its
main draws: it manages the graphics devices.

It's got console support too, if you find the graphical
stuff to sophisticated.

DOS was kinda lame on this score, but MS's
products have got a lot better since then.

When you have to roll your own because there isn't a viable product out
there, the problems start to come up very quickly with MS development
tools. I've had no problems with VMS and the excellent development tools.

What "viable product" is missing for you? There's an awful lot of
stuff out there for Windows, after all. And what 'problems' come
up very quickly with MS development tools?

[snip]
Of course not. It is obsolete.

Not in VMS it isn't. Works great and is very easy to use.

It is obsolete on any platform. It *works*, sure,
but lots of obsolete stuff still works. The industry
has moved on from ISAMs.

[snip]
MS provides relational database tools instead; much nicer
that some old ISAM.

Guffaw!!
DEC did it the best. All MS could do was to make a lame attempt at a
copy.

No. MS did not copy RMS because nobody wants that now;
people who proper relational database systems with SQL
support, transaction integrity, stored procedures, trigger,
constraints, the works.

So MS sells that.

[snip]
Could you be more specific about this? What conveniences
are you thinking of?

During program development. Even the DCL allowed for linkage of many
different object modules together.

DCL was DEC's command language, and it beats
..BAT files hollow. But it isn't a linker; you could
invoke a linker with it, but the object module
compatibility stuff was done by observing consistant
calling conventions.

..NET, as I have mentioned, goes beyond this.

Backups were easy.

Are Windows backups hard?

Their All-In-One office package was better. etc.

I did not know they had one, still less that
it was better than Office is today.

What was the name of this office package?
I'd like to look it up.

[snip]
Very probably inertia. VMS is a great OS, and I don't mean
to downplay it, but if they are still using RMS files for
they transtion engines, it's because they haven't bothered
to upgrade- if not to Windows, then at least to a relational
database.

This is where a lot of people don't get it. VMS was great in disaster
recovery during 9/11. If it weren't for VMS, the stock market would have
been irreparably damaged.

I doubt this very much.

As it was, a couple of days later all of the transactions were restored.

You can do this on Windows. This is
all well understood stuff; just a question
of shipping your transaction logs to offsite
replicates of your databases.

Though I doubt not that VMS was doing this
before SQL Server was!

That's why VMS isn't going to disappear. IBM is another strong vendor
for this market and they do play a role in other market exchanges as well.
Same concept, just different vendors.
What they like to do is use the Windows desktop as data gathering
frontends to these operations.

Sure. Windows has great UI support, and you can run
all your favorites apps on the same computer you use
as the data gathering front end.

[snip]
Because VMS is missing a lot of stuff MS
has; like the .NET stuff I just mentioned.

VMS is an operating system, not a programming language.
They don't need the .NET paradigm because their languages
are already robust, tried and proven.

By this I suppose you mean "old". :D

[snip]
Indeed not. Has some other language surpassed
FORTRAN while I was not looking? If so, which one?

Fortran is perfect for programs that can't afford to lose numerical
accuracy. Otherwise your results will be perfect garbage.

You are quite mistaken about this. You'd actually
be better off with C#, and much better off with
COBOL, if you want maximum accuracy.

Fortran uses floating point binary numbers for
its data types, because they are fast. But their
accuracy problems are well known and serious.

[snip]
That too. It was awful hard to bring that stuff to
the PC or the Mac. It was done, but it took a long,
long time. With Windows, you just drop in a card,
and install the driver for it. And it works.

MS wrote a very good basic interpreter for the Amiga. Best interpreter
I've ever seen from them. Too bad they can't do a repeat now for the PC.
I've yet to see multiple bit-plane animations done like the Amiga had done
in its days.

Technology has moved on; but the revolution in 3d cards
that has changed PC graphics so much was only possible
because there was an OS to provide compatible access
to these cards.

[snip]
I can't parse that. Certainly I agree that Commodore's
management had much to do with that companies fall.

Let me put it this way... Commodore spent too much money trying to produce
a PC clone to run MS-DOS on in a saturated market. Before, they were
making a decent profit.

That does seem strange and foolish; I suppose they
did this at the very end, when things looked hopeless?

[snip]
This is where they can't really innovate... all that luggage that prevents
MS to push the technology further, and they have to carry it around.
That's why Apple had to dump a whole paradigm to plunge ahead and take the
lead. A very bold and risky move, but a successful one.

This is an interest allegation. What 'whole paradigm'
has Apple dumped?

[snip]
The first Windows that supported timesharing with
a GUI for each user was NT 4, Terminal Services
Edition. That would appear to be the bit of mainframe
tech you are talking about.

It would seem so. But then, Bill had to *** in and push for moving the
GDI into kernel space which made the o/s a bit unstable. It was then upto
the graphics vendors to write good stable code for their grahpics cards.

No. The GDI was just as unstable when it was in CSRSS.exe;
an fault in that process caused a blue-screen, and the entire
OS halted. This is in no way an improvement over the kernel.

They were right to go with the kernel-GDI implementation;
it was a lot faster, and at the time that was critical.

[snip]
Yes. They also changed a few meanings as well. Back in the old days a
subroutine was meant as such. A function was meant as such. But no... MS
had to invent a new buzz word to muddy the waters... APIs. (Application
Interfaces) I preferred the older meanings as everyone back then knew
what you meant.

"API" does not mean "subroutine" or "function".

It's meaning is closer to "promise".

An API is an interface that apps use to interact with
the OS. MS promises to keep it stable so your apps
work.

It is composed of numerous functions, subroutines,
records, constants, and much else. But it is not any one
of its components.

[snip]
I think MS's long range planing was vidicated by events, really:
they did ship all that stuff, and they brought the industry with
them. It just took time.

But everyone was still waiting for MS to catch up where they had left off.
Remember the old MP/M?

No, I don't.

But the customers do not, as a rule, like being rushed
from platform to platform. As a matter of fact, they hate
it passionately.

[snip]
If you like. But that would have saved Java as a technology
from the dead end into which Sun was guiding it.

I doubt that Sun was guiding it into a dead end. Sun has always promoted
Java, they just didn't want MS to derail their efforts.
By letting Sun manage their own language, and also develop it for many
other platforms, everyone else can standardize on Java if they want to.
Can anyone standardize on any of MS languages now? They can't because of
the reliance on their o/s which is proprietary.

Actually, they can standardized on C# if they want to.

(The list of volunteers is short, admittedly.)

[snip]
There is much in what you say, so I've snipped it. :D

But I'll object to this: Apple does *not* make computers
for the masses. They make computers for the elite.

The masses, as ever, want cheap computers and don't
care that much about quality, still less style.

That has changed.

I do not believe this.

Dells offerings aren't any cheaper than Apples offerings.

That's bad.. for Apple.

Think of the Caddilac Cimmaron. A rebadged
Chevy Cavalier which badly damaged Caddilac's
brand.

If Apple is really selling cheap computers
that are just standard Intel parts with Apple's
logo slapped on, it's going to hurt Apple's
brand seriously.

I do rather doubt that Apple will allow this
to happen, however. Apple will not follow
Dell as prices fall, I think.

I do see Apples in education systems more and more these days, so it
looks like the ease of use is finally becoming obvious to the masses.
It'll just take a few big box stores to realize this is all.

I think you are being overly optimistic here; Apple
has long had a strong presence in education, but
nothing much came of it outside the hallowed
halls of academe.


.

Quantcast