cetron%utah-cbd@UTAH-CS.ARPA.UUCP (07/08/86)
I thought that I'd stay out of this fracas but some of the garbage the fanatics are printing has finally got me upset enough to write.... From where of I speak: I speak both FORTRAN and C, as well as being familiar with both VMS and Un*x to the point of some systems programming on both....(but my true love is RSX-11M/M+....) First off, any one who tries to use FORTRAN directly to do some of the functions mentioned earlier ( :fortran follies) obviously doesn't even remotely understand the interaction/synergy between the OS and the programming language. FORTRAN is NOT designed to do these kinds of things and it is hard to do them via FORTRAN but that is not the folly, the folly is even thinking/trying to... ( And yes, Un*x F77 is even worse to use....) On the other hand, C does this kind of stuff extremely well - but it is terrible for large brute force number crunching - and it is ludicrous to use it in that fashion.... One must also remember that certain combinations of OS's and languages have been 'designed' to work well together. The most obvious examples are VMS & VAX FORTRAN and Un*x and C. Using the other combinations are ok, but not the optimal usage (unless you only have one machine....) Indeed, both VMS and Un*x have their own strengths and weaknesses.. I have spent 17 years working on computers, the last 7 on DEC hardware, an have played with most everything out there at one time or another (except maybe Burroughs and Honeywell). And except for the IBM which are user unfriendly (try hacking in JCL sometime) and have NO redeeming values (other than the backing of BIG BLUE which in some cases IS important), each had a particular type of activity for which it was optimized. The CDC 6600 I programmed in COMPASS (60 bit words...with multiple assemble instuctions in each word....and different syntax depending on the position within the word) was terrible to program - but it was extraordinarily fast for large numerical calculations. To the extrapolate and therefore say it would be the 'best' for controlling the lights/heating/cooling/etc of your home is insane... A true computer engineer ( distinct from computer scientist - we engineers like to USE computers for practical applications - not postulate them) use the right tool for the job at hand. A carpenter doesn't use a hammer to screw in a nail, or a screwdriver to drive a nail...so how can he say the hammer is 'better' than a screwdriver. So how can a person who represents himself to be an 'expert' or a PROFESSIONAL !EVER! say Un*x is better than VMS or VMS is better than Un*x... I use both, fluently and PROFESSIONALLY. When I need to develop large interactive programs which need to be tweaked and massaged I wouldn't dream of using anything but Un*x. But when it is done, and the users need access to it, it wouldn't put it on anything but VMS. (sorry, Un*x fanatics, for the novice unsophisticated user how wants to use the program/enviornment to find answers not questions, VMS is easier to teach and master - try convincing an MD that ls makes more sense than dir...and yes I know that you can alias things about but try explaining NO version numbers compared to explaining versions and them safeguards that they provide.) And for large simulations I always use FORTRAN and the VMS machines. It only makes sense, that is what FORTRAN and VMS were designed for. Anything else is folly. Of course, there is always some overlap, and in that case things are going to get kludgy, REGARDLESS of which system/language that you use... The bottom line: VMS is a solid, reliable system whose innards are convoluted (but so are our guts) which is a general purpose machine perfectly adapted for getting things done. Un*x is a quirky, mostly reliable, system whose innards are fairly straight forward (and a mere mortal CAN aspire to understand it all) which is perfect to create an environment conducive to create the things which can be used to get things done. Neither is 'better' - but both are better when used together... AND any fool who says one is 'BETTER' than the other is no professional but simply a fool.... ( and heaven help the fool how tries to do really high-speed data acquisition and control with either.....) -ed cetron%utah-cbd@utah-cs.arpa
tpmsph@ecsvax.UUCP.UUCP (07/11/86)
Hooray for cetron (ed ????): he hit the nail on the head. All
these flames and silly bickering about un*x and VMS (great american nits
and how to pick them :-} ) misses the point entirely. Un*x may be more well
suited to interactive usage for sophisticated users, and for elegant
toolbox type approaches. Likewise, some people prefer the wordy (but somewhat
intelligible :-) ) VMS DCL interface. The two OS's were designed for
different purposes, and the fact that VMS can't, say, fry eggs, but Un*x
can, is completely beside the point.
Pick the best tool for the job, or the best tool available to
the client, and use it what it was designed for, whether it's VMS, or
Un*x, or PC-DOS, RT-11, Ingres, Dbase III, or Lotus123!!!