On PC:
C:\Work\VMS\objectpascal>ppcjvm demo.pas
...
On VMS:
$ java -cp demo.jar:fpcjvm.jar "demo"
F1=0,F2=
F1=123,F2=ABC
VMS can no longer self-host its own development stack any more.
On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 11:35:16 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On PC:
C:\Work\VMS\objectpascal>ppcjvm demo.pas
...
On VMS:
$ java -cp demo.jar:fpcjvm.jar "demo"
F1=0,F2=
F1=123,F2=ABC
VMS can no longer self-host its own development stack any more.
On 2024-09-02, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 11:35:16 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On PC:
C:\Work\VMS\objectpascal>ppcjvm demo.pas
...
On VMS:
$ java -cp demo.jar:fpcjvm.jar "demo"
F1=0,F2=
F1=123,F2=ABC
VMS can no longer self-host its own development stack any more.
That has been true for a long time - you can't even get Ada for
VMS these days. Even though Free Pascal is very portable, it does
not surprise me one little bit that it will not run native on VMS.
Simon.
Seems there is some opinions that everything should run on everything. That just isn't so, and why should it be?
As for VMS and Pascal, there is a very decent implementation of that language on
VMS, so what's the problem when a product aimed at a different environment will
not run on every environment.
On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 11:35:16 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On PC:
C:\Work\VMS\objectpascal>ppcjvm demo.pas
...
On VMS:
$ java -cp demo.jar:fpcjvm.jar "demo"
F1=0,F2=
F1=123,F2=ABC
VMS can no longer self-host its own development stack any more.
On 2024-09-03, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
Seems there is some opinions that everything should run on everything. That >> just isn't so, and why should it be?
No. There are things that are expected to be available in a modern ecosystem or for which it would be highly desirable for them to be available.
Environments that do not support those things rapidly acquire legacy status and then unusable in a modern environment status.
BTW, the above is not a Free Pascal comment, but more of a general observation.
As for VMS and Pascal, there is a very decent implementation of that language on
VMS, so what's the problem when a product aimed at a different environment will
not run on every environment.
So how capable are the OO features in VMS Pascal these days ?
BTW, about portability, the Free Pascal people say this on their website:
|Free Pascal is a mature, versatile, open source Pascal compiler. It
|can target many processor architectures: Intel x86 (16 and 32 bit), |AMD64/x86-64, PowerPC, PowerPC64, SPARC, SPARC64, ARM, AArch64, MIPS, |Motorola 68k, AVR, and the JVM. Supported operating systems include
|Windows (16/32/64 bit, CE, and native NT), Linux, Mac OS |X/iOS/iPhoneSimulator/Darwin, FreeBSD and other BSD flavors, DOS (16
|bit, or 32 bit DPMI), OS/2, AIX, Android, Haiku, Nintendo GBA/DS/Wii, |AmigaOS, MorphOS, AROS, Atari TOS, and various embedded platforms. |Additionally, support for RISC-V (32/64), Xtensa, and Z80
|architectures, and for the LLVM compiler infrastructure is available
|in the development version. Additionally, the Free Pascal team
|maintains a transpiler for pascal to Javascript called pas2js.
No VMS however.
On 9/2/2024 7:51 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 11:35:16 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On PC:
C:\Work\VMS\objectpascal>ppcjvm demo.pas
...
On VMS:
$ java -cp demo.jar:fpcjvm.jar "demo"
F1=0,F2=
F1=123,F2=ABC
VMS can no longer self-host its own development stack any more.
There are lots of compilers and interpreters available on VMS.
There are also a bunch that are not available on VMS. That
bunch include FPC.
If someone wanted FPC to run on VMS, then they could
port it. It is open source.
FPC has really nothing to do with VMS, but compiling to
Java byte code is a very broad targeting cross compiler.
Which I took advantage of.
On 9/3/24 2:59 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On 9/2/2024 7:51 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 11:35:16 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On PC:
C:\Work\VMS\objectpascal>ppcjvm demo.pas
...
On VMS:
$ java -cp demo.jar:fpcjvm.jar "demo"
F1=0,F2=
F1=123,F2=ABC
VMS can no longer self-host its own development stack any more.
It depends on what is meant by "its own development stack." It certainly
does self-host the tools used to build the OS itself.
There are lots of compilers and interpreters available on VMS.
There are also a bunch that are not available on VMS. That
bunch include FPC.
If someone wanted FPC to run on VMS, then they could
port it. It is open source.
FPC has really nothing to do with VMS, but compiling to
Java byte code is a very broad targeting cross compiler.
Which I took advantage of.
And I think everyone who wasn't trolling recognized that. The JVM
brings a big party with it wherever it goes. .NET would bring a
slightly smaller but still nice-to-have party. With LLVM as a
foundation for the current crop of VMS compilers, many things are
possible (but nothing is easy).
Has anyone actually tried porting FPC to VMS? It looks at first glance
like a lot of it is written in Pascal, so I assume it would need to be cross-compiled initially.
On 9/3/2024 6:27 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
Has anyone actually tried porting FPC to VMS? It looks at first glance
like a lot of it is written in Pascal, so I assume it would need to be
cross-compiled initially.
Why? Wasn't the VMS Pascal compiler ported? I would think it
would be a lot easier porting something written in Pascal
compared to something written in C.
On 9/3/2024 6:27 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
Has anyone actually tried porting FPC to VMS? It looks at first glance
like a lot of it is written in Pascal, so I assume it would need to be
cross-compiled initially.
Given how many OS'es it has already been ported to, then it should
be very doable.
But as usual it requires somebody to do the work.
On 2024-09-03, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
Seems there is some opinions that everything should run on everything. That >> just isn't so, and why should it be?
No. There are things that are expected to be available in a modern ecosystem or for which it would be highly desirable for them to be available.
Environments that do not support those things rapidly acquire legacy status and then unusable in a modern environment status.
BTW, the above is not a Free Pascal comment, but more of a general observation.
As for VMS and Pascal, there is a very decent implementation of that language on
VMS, so what's the problem when a product aimed at a different environment will
not run on every environment.
So how capable are the OO features in VMS Pascal these days ?
BTW, about portability, the Free Pascal people say this on their website:
|Free Pascal is a mature, versatile, open source Pascal compiler. It
|can target many processor architectures: Intel x86 (16 and 32 bit), |AMD64/x86-64, PowerPC, PowerPC64, SPARC, SPARC64, ARM, AArch64, MIPS, |Motorola 68k, AVR, and the JVM. Supported operating systems include
|Windows (16/32/64 bit, CE, and native NT), Linux, Mac OS |X/iOS/iPhoneSimulator/Darwin, FreeBSD and other BSD flavors, DOS (16
|bit, or 32 bit DPMI), OS/2, AIX, Android, Haiku, Nintendo GBA/DS/Wii, |AmigaOS, MorphOS, AROS, Atari TOS, and various embedded platforms. |Additionally, support for RISC-V (32/64), Xtensa, and Z80
|architectures, and for the LLVM compiler infrastructure is available
|in the development version. Additionally, the Free Pascal team
|maintains a transpiler for pascal to Javascript called pas2js.
No VMS however.
On 9/3/2024 8:34 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On 9/3/2024 8:22 PM, bill wrote:
On 9/3/2024 6:27 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
Has anyone actually tried porting FPC to VMS? It looks at first glance >>>> like a lot of it is written in Pascal, so I assume it would need to be >>>> cross-compiled initially.
Why? Wasn't the VMS Pascal compiler ported? I would think it
would be a lot easier porting something written in Pascal
compared to something written in C.
If FPC source is ISO Pascal then VMS Pascal may be able to build it
with maybe a few tweaks.
But if the FPC source is Object Pascal then VMS Pascal is of no use.
A quick glance at https://github.com/fpc/FPCSource/screams Object Pascal.
So, that OO shit comes out to bite people on the ass yet again. :-)
bill
On 9/3/2024 8:22 PM, bill wrote:
On 9/3/2024 6:27 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
Has anyone actually tried porting FPC to VMS? It looks at first glance >>> like a lot of it is written in Pascal, so I assume it would need to be
cross-compiled initially.
Why? Wasn't the VMS Pascal compiler ported? I would think it
would be a lot easier porting something written in Pascal
compared to something written in C.
If FPC source is ISO Pascal then VMS Pascal may be able to build it
with maybe a few tweaks.
But if the FPC source is Object Pascal then VMS Pascal is of no use.
A quick glance at https://github.com/fpc/FPCSource/screams Object Pascal.
Arne
On 9/3/2024 8:35 PM, bill wrote:
On 9/3/2024 8:34 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On 9/3/2024 8:22 PM, bill wrote:
On 9/3/2024 6:27 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
Has anyone actually tried porting FPC to VMS? It looks at first glance >>>>> like a lot of it is written in Pascal, so I assume it would need to be >>>>> cross-compiled initially.
Why? Wasn't the VMS Pascal compiler ported? I would think it
would be a lot easier porting something written in Pascal
compared to something written in C.
If FPC source is ISO Pascal then VMS Pascal may be able to build it
with maybe a few tweaks.
But if the FPC source is Object Pascal then VMS Pascal is of no use.
A quick glance at https://github.com/fpc/FPCSource/screams Object Pascal. >>>
So, that OO shit comes out to bite people on the ass yet again. :-)
Some like to forget, at the bottom, it is just ones and zeros ...
On 9/3/2024 8:34 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On 9/3/2024 8:22 PM, bill wrote:
On 9/3/2024 6:27 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
Has anyone actually tried porting FPC to VMS? It looks at first glance >>>> like a lot of it is written in Pascal, so I assume it would need to be >>>> cross-compiled initially.
Why? Wasn't the VMS Pascal compiler ported? I would think it
would be a lot easier porting something written in Pascal
compared to something written in C.
If FPC source is ISO Pascal then VMS Pascal may be able to build it
with maybe a few tweaks.
But if the FPC source is Object Pascal then VMS Pascal is of no use.
A quick glance at https://github.com/fpc/FPCSource/ screams Object Pascal.
So, that OO shit comes out to bite people on the ass yet again. :-)
On 04/09/2024 01:34, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On 9/3/2024 8:22 PM, bill wrote:
On 9/3/2024 6:27 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
Has anyone actually tried porting FPC to VMS? It looks at first glance >>>> like a lot of it is written in Pascal, so I assume it would need to be >>>> cross-compiled initially.
Why? Wasn't the VMS Pascal compiler ported? I would think it
would be a lot easier porting something written in Pascal
compared to something written in C.
If FPC source is ISO Pascal then VMS Pascal may be able to build it
with maybe a few tweaks.
But if the FPC source is Object Pascal then VMS Pascal is of no use.
A quick glance at https://github.com/fpc/FPCSource/screams Object Pascal.
I see that FPC are planning LLVM back-end support...
On 9/3/2024 2:02 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
BTW, about portability, the Free Pascal people say this on their website:
|Free Pascal is a mature, versatile, open source Pascal compiler. It
|can target many processor architectures: Intel x86 (16 and 32 bit),
|AMD64/x86-64, PowerPC, PowerPC64, SPARC, SPARC64, ARM, AArch64, MIPS,
|Motorola 68k, AVR, and the JVM. Supported operating systems include
|Windows (16/32/64 bit, CE, and native NT), Linux, Mac OS
|X/iOS/iPhoneSimulator/Darwin, FreeBSD and other BSD flavors, DOS (16
|bit, or 32 bit DPMI), OS/2, AIX, Android, Haiku, Nintendo GBA/DS/Wii,
|AmigaOS, MorphOS, AROS, Atari TOS, and various embedded platforms.
|Additionally, support for RISC-V (32/64), Xtensa, and Z80
|architectures, and for the LLVM compiler infrastructure is available
|in the development version. Additionally, the Free Pascal team
|maintains a transpiler for pascal to Javascript called pas2js.
No VMS however.
Seems as if thoswe people aren't as "open" as they think they are. If
the world is mainly WEENDOZE and Unix and derivatives perhaps.
On 9/3/2024 2:02 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-09-03, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
As for VMS and Pascal, there is a very decent implementation of that
language on
VMS, so what's the problem when a product aimed at a different
environment will
not run on every environment.
So how capable are the OO features in VMS Pascal these days ?
You state that similar to my comment above, as if it is a given that OO
is necessary. Perhaps not. Cheap way to avoid my question.
[LLVM] will definitely help with the optimization of the code generated
by FPC. It is significantly worse than what GCC/LLVM/MSVC++.
On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:10:49 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
[LLVM] will definitely help with the optimization of the code generated
by FPC. It is significantly worse than what GCC/LLVM/MSVC++.
Also, I came across this project called QBE <https://c9x.me/compile/>.
It?s nowhere near as ambitious as LLVM, but it looks interesting for some smaller-scale uses.
There?s a standard Debian package available. Also, it doesn?t insist on strict SSA. ;)
On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:36:02 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
And to be clear then this work would have to be driven by fondness for
Pascal. There is no business case.
Back in the day, there was DECUS -- an active community of users creating/ adapting and collecting software for DEC systems, for each other to use.
Where is that now?
And to be clear then this work would have to be driven by fondness for Pascal. There is no business case.
If VSI or someone else want to port something on a commercial basis then
I think the priority list should be:
1) .NET with C#, F# and VB.NET
On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:36:02 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
If VSI or someone else want to port something on a commercial basis then
I think the priority list should be:
1) .NET with C#, F# and VB.NET
Dotnet never seemed more than a Microsoft corporate vanity project (a reaction to Sun’s lawsuit over Java), rather than an actual important technology. Microsoft themselves have never used it for anything strategic (e.g. Office); their one attempt to incorporate it deeply into the OS
(Vista) ended in failure.
On 9/4/2024 3:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On 9/3/2024 10:48 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
On 9/3/2024 2:02 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-09-03, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
As for VMS and Pascal, there is a very decent implementation of that >>>>> language on
VMS, so what's the problem when a product aimed at a different
environment will
not run on every environment.
So how capable are the OO features in VMS Pascal these days ?
You state that similar to my comment above, as if it is a given that
OO is
necessary. Perhaps not. Cheap way to avoid my question.
If you write OS kernel or an embedded application for a device counting
memory in KB (or maybe a few MB): it is not necessary.
Ok, your word, "necessary".
Explain to me why OO is necessary ...
Not that it may be useful, or desired. You wrote "necessary".
On 9/3/2024 10:48 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
On 9/3/2024 2:02 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-09-03, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
As for VMS and Pascal, there is a very decent implementation of that
language on
VMS, so what's the problem when a product aimed at a different environment will
not run on every environment.
So how capable are the OO features in VMS Pascal these days ?
You state that similar to my comment above, as if it is a given that OO is >> necessary. Perhaps not. Cheap way to avoid my question.
If you write OS kernel or an embedded application for a device counting memory in KB (or maybe a few MB): it is not necessary.
On 9/6/2024 8:19 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
On 9/4/2024 3:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On 9/3/2024 10:48 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
On 9/3/2024 2:02 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-09-03, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
As for VMS and Pascal, there is a very decent implementation of that >>>>>> language on
VMS, so what's the problem when a product aimed at a different environment
will
not run on every environment.
So how capable are the OO features in VMS Pascal these days ?
You state that similar to my comment above, as if it is a given that OO is >>>> necessary. Perhaps not. Cheap way to avoid my question.
If you write OS kernel or an embedded application for a device counting
memory in KB (or maybe a few MB): it is not necessary.
Ok, your word, "necessary".
Explain to me why OO is necessary ...
Not that it may be useful, or desired. You wrote "necessary".
Dave, you're wasting your time. The COBOL world asked that
question and look what they did to them. :-)
bill
On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:36:02 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
And to be clear then this work would have to be driven by fondness for
Pascal. There is no business case.
Back in the day, there was DECUS -- an active community of users creating/ adapting and collecting software for DEC systems, for each other to use.
Where is that now?
On 2024-09-06, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2024 3:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On 9/3/2024 10:48 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
On 9/3/2024 2:02 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-09-03, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
As for VMS and Pascal, there is a very decent implementation of
that language on
VMS, so what's the problem when a product aimed at a different
environment will not run on every environment.
So how capable are the OO features in VMS Pascal these days ?
You state that similar to my comment above, as if it is a given
that OO is necessary. Perhaps not. Cheap way to avoid my
question.
If you write OS kernel or an embedded application for a device
counting memory in KB (or maybe a few MB): it is not necessary.
Ok, your word, "necessary".
Explain to me why OO is necessary ...
Not that it may be useful, or desired. You wrote "necessary".
Because the sheer size of the projects involved require the additional abstraction and encapsulation that OO brings to the table.
There is a reason why Ada, a language designed for building extremely
large safety-critical systems, added OO features to its second
iteration and the only debate has been on the syntax, not whether
those OO features were required.
It's the exact same reason why no-one builds a OS in assembly language
these days. Technically you "could" do it, but to build something
viable and robust and in a reasonable amount of time, it is
"necessary" to use a higher-level language such as C.
Simon.
On 9/4/2024 3:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On 9/3/2024 10:48 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
On 9/3/2024 2:02 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-09-03, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
As for VMS and Pascal, there is a very decent implementation of that >>>>> language on
VMS, so what's the problem when a product aimed at a different environment will
not run on every environment.
So how capable are the OO features in VMS Pascal these days ?
You state that similar to my comment above, as if it is a given that OO is >>> necessary. Perhaps not. Cheap way to avoid my question.
If you write OS kernel or an embedded application for a device counting
memory in KB (or maybe a few MB): it is not necessary.
Ok, your word, "necessary".
Explain to me why OO is necessary ...
Not that it may be useful, or desired. You wrote "necessary".
On 2024-09-06, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2024 3:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On 9/3/2024 10:48 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
On 9/3/2024 2:02 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-09-03, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
As for VMS and Pascal, there is a very decent implementation of that >>>>>> language on
VMS, so what's the problem when a product aimed at a different environment will
not run on every environment.
So how capable are the OO features in VMS Pascal these days ?
You state that similar to my comment above, as if it is a given that OO is >>>> necessary. Perhaps not. Cheap way to avoid my question.
If you write OS kernel or an embedded application for a device counting
memory in KB (or maybe a few MB): it is not necessary.
Ok, your word, "necessary".
Explain to me why OO is necessary ...
Not that it may be useful, or desired. You wrote "necessary".
Because the sheer size of the projects involved require the additional >abstraction and encapsulation that OO brings to the table.
There is a reason why Ada, a language designed for building extremely
large safety-critical systems, added OO features to its second iteration
and the only debate has been on the syntax, not whether those OO features >were required.
It's the exact same reason why no-one builds a OS in assembly language
these days. Technically you "could" do it, but to build something viable
and robust and in a reasonable amount of time, it is "necessary" to use
a higher-level language such as C.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 432 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 29:48:42 |
| Calls: | 9,081 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,409 |
| Messages: | 6,022,132 |