GKN%OAK.SAINET.MFENET@LLL-MFE.ARPA (09/04/85)
Hmm... I just did an $ Analyze/Image on TECO on our VMS V4.1 system and
it sure looks like it's native mode to me ...
gkn
------------------------------
Arpa: GKN%OAK.SAInet@LLL-MFE
USPS: Gerard K. Newman
Science Applications
800 Oak Ridge Turnpike
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
AT&T: (615) 482-9031OC.GARLAND@CU20B.ARPA (Richard Garland) (09/04/85)
I believe TECO is an "Andy Goldstein Special" with its own built in compatibility mode handler and RMS interface. It doesn't for examlple use the AME (now known as VAX-11 RSX). I do still believe however that it runs in compatibility mode. Rg -------
KVC@engvax.UUCP (09/04/85)
> Hmm... I just did an $ Analyze/Image on TECO on our VMS V4.1 system and > it sure looks like it's native mode to me ... > gkn TECO actually runs in both native and compatibility modes. The image starts up in native mode and does some VMS interfacing and then switches to compatibility mode. If you really want a treat, you can check out the source to the native mode parts of TECO on the ufiche. It's pretty icky. /Kevin Carosso engvax!kvc @ CIT-VAX.ARPA Hughes Aircraft Co.
AWalker@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (*Hobbit*) (09/10/85)
I think it is really lousy that DEC is trying to phase out TECO. It is a *wonderful* editing system, even DEC teco. You can do really wild things with it by typing what looks like line noise. ITS TECO is worlds better. Does anyone have the time and desire to re-implement TECO in true native mode for vaxen [and maybe even other machines]? If it ever gained true functionality, you could run the original ITS Emacs on your Un*x box with minimal modification. Now *that* would be an ultimate win. _H* -------
lerner@ISI-VAXA.ARPA (Mitchell Lerner) (09/10/85)
You cant be serious... What is so great about a facillity that produces programs that are so unintellagable and violently painfull to maintain that the mere utterence of its name strikes fear, amusement and strong opposition into the hearts of honest programmers accross the country. Isnt it time for this scourge to die and remain dead. Perhapse those who dont mind or enjoy using TECO could all physicaly get together and all TECO jobs could be sent to them directly. In that way no body else would be exposed to TECO and the TECO people would be effectivley quarenteened and known. Lets all be honest with ourselves and work at saving this and future generations from the blight of the seventies TECO. Sincerely, Mitchell
jeff@ISI-VAXA.ARPA (Jeffery A. Cavallaro) (09/11/85)
OK, Mitch doesn't like TECO. But I happen to know that Mitch is not a fan of LISP-type languages either. Well, I guess that leaves out EMACS too. Of course you could write macros in EDT, but that is rather wordy and not as powerful. So, a question: If you have a rather hairy text manipulation application that you may use only once or frequently, you hate to type, and you hate lisp-type languages, what utility would you use??? (REMEMBER: Real programmers use a hard, cryptic, unforgiving editor - TECO)
lerner@ISI-VAXA.ARPA (Mitchell Lerner) (09/11/85)
Dear Jeff: The question was: "If you have a hairy text manipulation task and you hate to type and you hate "lisp-oriented" languages then what do you use?" Gee Jeff... As stated, I guess that is a job for TECO or some "lisp-oriented" language. What else would you use if you hate to type and hates lisp? Why does one need to hate to type? Most English word are longer than two characters. If you hate to type discriptive words then I guess the language of choice is one that doesnt have and words in it. And the result wont be discriptive. I dont hate lisp, It has its uses (albet few functional ones). However it is not very portable or structured (i.e. maintainable). And if written like most whiz-bang, string processing programs the lisp program will be filed under G as soon as the author leaves the company and someone has to modify it (it will be rewritten). Also, how does one debug a TECO program??? With much effort no doubt. Now if the guy wanted to write a maintainable, scrutable utility then he would use a language that supports the development of such a utility: Bliss or C, perhapse certain Pascals (no, no Pascal!). I am not saying that cryptic code cannot be written in C (just look at Berkley Unix source) but languages of that ilk can do the jobs and are less painfull to debug and maintain. Good programs take time and effort. Time should be spent finding the most clear, simple soultion, and not the most cute, conveluded one. P.S. Jeff: If one wanted to cross an ocean, and he hates to swim and he hates to fly then what would he use other that a boat?
AAA@SU-AI.ARPA (Allan Miller) (09/12/85)
Amid all the flamage, it's interesting to note that EMACS was (originally) written in TECO, so it can't be all that bad... OK, I won't say anything more on the subject. Promise. Allan