[comp.lang.c] VMX-C curses

sommar@enea.UUCP (Erland Sommarskog) (09/05/87)

In a recent article sns@genghis.UUCP (Sam Southard) writes:
>In article <1069@bsu-cs.UUCP>, dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>> But perhaps the most outstanding advantage of VMS C environment is that
>> the cursor control routines require a terminal manufactured by DEC or
>> something equivalent.  This saves no end of trouble--no more time
>> wasted having to create termcap entries for strange terminals of
>> questionable quality.
>
>If you want to limit yourself to DEC terminals, then go ahead - hard code
>the DEC control sequences into your programs.  Don't limit us to only those
>terminals. /etc/termcap (or terminfo) is a feature, not a disadvantage.

I think that Sam Southard missed the ironic tone in Rahul Dhesi's article.
Anyway, a little correction here. As far I know VAX-C curses is built on
SMG, the modern correspondence to curses on VMS. SMG has support for 
non-DEC terminals. You can write your own TERMTABLE.TXT describing the
terminal you have. I guess this is just like termcap and as far as I can
read from my VMS manual, VMS takes much more terminal capabilities in
regard than termcap does. For those who are interested, I refer to chapter
3.10 in VMS Run-Time Library Reference Manual.
  It should be added that there is a performance penalty using this table.
VT100/200 terminals are supported more "directly".

If you want to argue with me personally on this point, please do this by
mail. I wouldn't even dream of reading comp.lang.c. (The quoted articles
did for some reason appear in the Ada group too. That's how my eyes met 
them.)


-- 

Erland Sommarskog       
ENEA Data, Stockholm    
sommar@enea.UUCP