Re: C and C++, promotion, stabilization, migrationFor embedded

On 2024-08-25 15:36:58 +0000, Dave Froble said:

All the objects mentioned by Arne are in simple terms 'tokens' to represent some object.  I see no reason for the elements in such tokens to be more complex than required.  Perhaps a bit more complex than the "A", "B", "C", etc of WEENDOZE disk names.  But needing everything every user might dream up?  I don't see the benefit.  Other than perhaps stubbornness and ego of some particular user.  It just defies the KISS principal, which I find to be useful.

That ship sailed. Those ships. The KISS ship. The compatibility ship. And the Unicode filename ship.
Common platforms including OpenVMS already support Unicode filenames, and some OpenVMS configurations already use those Unicode names.
The only difference is that OpenVMS display "keeps it simple", by avoiding using the native Unicode name displays to showing those using encoded DEC MCS (^UP^) displays.
If y'all have an app design that stores its files using UUIDs as names or whatever, then by all means, continue with that design.
Pragmatically, UUIDs may be better than what MAIL chose to use. But I digress.
Depending on how (where) you look at things, the OpenVMS file names can be UTF-8 or UCS-2 or VTF-7, too. Various of which'll be "fun" for sort-ordering filenames, too. And sorting is language-specific, too. But I digress.
That the filenames are stored using laser-etched cuneiform is an implementation detail. But between the ^ escaping and the ^UP^ and the pseudonames — and of course those wonderful DECC logical names misused as a configuration mechanism that can control or destabilize various apps  entirely out-of-band — more than a few OpenVMS command procedures, as well as other interpreters and compiled apps have to be aware of the rules. There's unfortunately not even a conversion or fallback API or related around either, AFAIK.
Yes, KISS is a laudable goal. So too is compatibility.
I don't expect any of this to get overhauled or fixed or updated, of course. Certainly not before the existing two terabyte ODS file system gets overhauled.
--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC