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

On 8/25/2024 11:05 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:

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.

Just because something is possible doesn't mean it should be used.  DDT is possible, and look at all the problems that came from that.

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.

See the problems you just mentioned?  KISS !!

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.

When appropriate.

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.

Now there is something that would have real benefits.
--
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486