| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 43 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 107:28:44 |
| Calls: | 290 |
| Files: | 905 |
| Messages: | 76,677 |
On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:36:02 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
And to be clear then this work would have to be driven by fondness for
Pascal. There is no business case.
Back in the day, there was DECUS -- an active community of users creating/ adapting and collecting software for DEC systems, for each other to use.
Where is that now?
And to be clear then this work would have to be driven by fondness for Pascal. There is no business case.
If VSI or someone else want to port something on a commercial basis then
I think the priority list should be:
1) .NET with C#, F# and VB.NET
On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:36:02 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
If VSI or someone else want to port something on a commercial basis then
I think the priority list should be:
1) .NET with C#, F# and VB.NET
Dotnet never seemed more than a Microsoft corporate vanity project (a reaction to Sun’s lawsuit over Java), rather than an actual important technology. Microsoft themselves have never used it for anything strategic (e.g. Office); their one attempt to incorporate it deeply into the OS
(Vista) ended in failure.
On 9/4/2024 3:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On 9/3/2024 10:48 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
On 9/3/2024 2:02 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-09-03, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
As for VMS and Pascal, there is a very decent implementation of that >>>>> language on
VMS, so what's the problem when a product aimed at a different
environment will
not run on every environment.
So how capable are the OO features in VMS Pascal these days ?
You state that similar to my comment above, as if it is a given that
OO is
necessary. Perhaps not. Cheap way to avoid my question.
If you write OS kernel or an embedded application for a device counting
memory in KB (or maybe a few MB): it is not necessary.
Ok, your word, "necessary".
Explain to me why OO is necessary ...
Not that it may be useful, or desired. You wrote "necessary".
On 9/3/2024 10:48 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
On 9/3/2024 2:02 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-09-03, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
As for VMS and Pascal, there is a very decent implementation of that
language on
VMS, so what's the problem when a product aimed at a different environment will
not run on every environment.
So how capable are the OO features in VMS Pascal these days ?
You state that similar to my comment above, as if it is a given that OO is >> necessary. Perhaps not. Cheap way to avoid my question.
If you write OS kernel or an embedded application for a device counting memory in KB (or maybe a few MB): it is not necessary.
On 9/6/2024 8:19 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
On 9/4/2024 3:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On 9/3/2024 10:48 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
On 9/3/2024 2:02 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-09-03, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
As for VMS and Pascal, there is a very decent implementation of that >>>>>> language on
VMS, so what's the problem when a product aimed at a different environment
will
not run on every environment.
So how capable are the OO features in VMS Pascal these days ?
You state that similar to my comment above, as if it is a given that OO is >>>> necessary. Perhaps not. Cheap way to avoid my question.
If you write OS kernel or an embedded application for a device counting
memory in KB (or maybe a few MB): it is not necessary.
Ok, your word, "necessary".
Explain to me why OO is necessary ...
Not that it may be useful, or desired. You wrote "necessary".
Dave, you're wasting your time. The COBOL world asked that
question and look what they did to them. :-)
bill