[bit.listserv.nodmgt-l] pathalias as a network supported standard

1GTLEJS@CALSTATE.BITNET (Ed Skochinski) (02/10/90)

I feel compelled to argue for a lowest common denominator:  Pascal.  The
uncommon architecture which makes CYBERs perform so well is what gives
rise to the lack of an adequate C compiler for NOS.  In general, C likes
8-bit, byte-addressable, VonNeumman architectures, preferably speaking
ASCII.  Pascal does not depend on national characters, and makes no
assumptions about architecture.  Pascal is far better defined for the
international, multi-vendor environment.  Please, could the BITNET
pathalias be implemented in ISO standard Pascal?

I usually argue for the lowest common denominator---it's just that the
CYBERs rarely fall into this category.  I don't think that this list is
the place to debate the nature of C and the flukes of NOS; C under NOS is
a problem, and Pascal is more widely available.  If you feel compelled to
flame me, send your commentary to me personally, and if I get sufficient
time, I'll argue my case.


Ed Skochinski
Operating Systems Support
The California State University

GETTES@PUCC.BITNET (Michael R. Gettes) (02/10/90)

On Fri, 9 Feb 90 09:00:47 PST Ed Skochinski said:
>I feel compelled to argue for a lowest common denominator:  Pascal.  The
>uncommon architecture which makes CYBERs perform so well is what gives
>rise to the lack of an adequate C compiler for NOS.  In general, C likes
>8-bit, byte-addressable, VonNeumman architectures, preferably speaking
>ASCII.  Pascal does not depend on national characters, and makes no
>assumptions about architecture.  Pascal is far better defined for the
>international, multi-vendor environment.  Please, could the BITNET
>pathalias be implemented in ISO standard Pascal?

Well, this is a sticky thicket. I believe this is an issue for
the Technical Committee which should set some kind of decree that
sites participating in our network should have C or some such
beast. Or C and Pascal and therefore all tools would have to be
provided in both languages... or whatever.

Anyway... my feeling is that if you really want to consider the
least common denominator -- IT'S FORTRAN! 'nuf said. I am not
going to develop networking software in FORTRAN. Sorry folks.
I suggest the CYBER folks make a real push for a better C as the
IBM folks did for IBM machines. Keep in mind, the IBM C is still
quite lacking in my book. So, as for implementing pathalias in Pascal,
unless it is done in a automated fashion of programatic translation,
I vote no. I do not think it is an area for significant investment of
time. However, if it is something that could easily be translated
by some PD translation software with minimal effort following,
go for it. I just don't think we should waste a lot of time and
effort in porting pathalias to Pascal.

/mrg

mwh@IVORY.EDUCOM.EDU (Michael Hrybyk) (02/10/90)

> I just don't think we should waste a lot of time and
> effort in porting pathalias to Pascal.
>
> /mrg
>

agreed. From talking to Ed, there is a Cyber C which is serviceable but
slow. Since the number of tables to be generated on any one Cyber would
be small anyway, the performance hit would not be significant.

Mike H.