u3369429@murdu.OZ.AU (Michael Bednarek) (03/17/87)
In article <8703150638.AA28073@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> McGuire_Ed@GRINNELL.MAILNET writes: >> >1. If I write nifty COMs just for my own account, I find myself [. . .] >> > forgetting how the vanilla environment behaves. >> >> Well, that reflects probably more of your idiosyncrasies than it is proof >> of the sufficiency of vanilla VMS. > >That was a needlessly hostile remark. It hurts when I make a contribution and >someone attacks me personally. I apologise for my remark. You are right, it was completely needless. I wrote the article without a cooling-off period. My only excuse is that about 30 percent of my work is to develop procedures and that your article, at first sight, seemed to indicate that you thought this to be a futile activity. However, your second article suggests to me that we basically agree. >> Have you tried to define the shifted function keys on your VT220 just by >> using DCL? Congratulations. > >I don't see how this is relevant. I'm sure I'm just missing the point. Just an example where you really need a procedure because the DCL command would be too complicated. >> How do you display all processes in your group/system, showing not only >> username and cpu-time, but also their login-time, currently executed image >> and possibly their real-life name? >Of course I've written a utility to do this. My point is that a lot of these utilities can be written in DCL. I find they are faster developed (no compile/link). And easier to maintain: Every programmer on a VAX, regardless of her/his preferred language, should be able to maintain them. >Ed McGuire >Grinnell College >MCGUIRE@GRIN2.BITNET Michael Bednarek (u3369429@murdu.oz.au)