4 ms·

At least Windows paths are not as clunky as Cutler's prior operating system, VAX/VMS Version 1.00 21-AUG-1978 15:54. $ create/directory dm0:[foobar] $ set

by chasil 4y ago

At least Windows paths are not as clunky as Cutler's prior operating system, VAX/VMS Version 1.00 21-AUG-1978 15:54. $ create/directory dm0:[foobar] $ set default dm0:[foobar] $ copy DM0:[SYSMGR]SYSTARTUP.COM example.txt $ dir/full DIRECTORY DM0:[FOOBAR] 21-APR-23 14:42 EXAMPLE.TXT;1 (615,2) 0./0. 21-APR-23 14:42 [1,4] [RWED,RWED,RWED,RE] TOTAL OF 0./0. BLOCKS IN 1. FILE

dhosek 4y ago
I rather liked VMS conventions as it was immediately obvious what was the directory part of the path and what was the filename and the device. You could create virtual devices as well, so for example, with VMS TeX, I had TEX_ROOT defined to point to the root of the TeX distribution and you would have TEX_ROOT:[INPUTS] for the input directory, TEX_ROOT:[MF] for Metafont files, TEX_ROOT:[EXE] for executables, etc. and everything was logically arranged. CLD files were another wonderful thing where you could define your CLI interface in an external file and let the OS handle argument and option parsing for you.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  > I rather liked VMS conventions as it was immediately obvious what was the directory part of the path and what was the filename and the device. 1. unix doesn't expose devices in the file tree, and thank the [deity] for that 2. directory part: everything to the last / 3. filename: everything afte the last / 4. TEX_ROOT=/foo/bar; cd $TEX_ROOT/MF Could it be any easier?
  - MereInterest 4y ago
    > unix doesn't expose devices in the file tree I mean, they are exposed as files (e.g. /dev/sda) within the file tree, but they aren’t exposed by a file path.
  - eska 4y ago
    Maybe parent is talking about the fact that you don’t know whether bar in foo/bar is a file or a directory?
  - dhosek 4y ago
    On 2 & 3, what if you have a directory? There’s no easy way to tell whether /foo/bar is a directory or a file. FOO:[BAR] must be a directory. I have a vague notion that there might have been the ability to have a virtual device span multiple directories, but as I think about it, this seems unlikely since it would make it ambiguous where something would be created if a directory exists in both root1 and root2, so perhaps not. It’s been 23 years since I last used VMS and 30 since it was my daily driver though, so it’s hard for me to say too much.
jlg23 4y ago
Clunky? Version control built in, distributed FS built in...
- Athas 4y ago
  The downside of building in stuff is that you can't easily replace it. I don't have any VMS experience, but the versioned file systems I've studied are very far from being a replacement for what I would consider version control today. They're more like the automatic writing of backup files in Emacs. Distributed FS sounds like something with a huge design space. It's better to do that in userspace. Was Plan 9 really the first time virtual file systems could be implemented in userspace? It seems like such an obviously useful idea in retrospect.
- chasil 4y ago
  The diff3 utility for 3-way merge appeared after the VMS debut (1979). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff3 Can you really call what we see in VMS full revision control when it lacks this capability?

by chasil 4y ago

dhosek 4y ago

I rather liked VMS conventions as it was immediately obvious what was the directory part of the path and what was the filename and the device. You could create virtual devices as well, so for example, with VMS TeX, I had TEX_ROOT defined to point to the root of the TeX distribution and you would have TEX_ROOT:[INPUTS] for the input directory, TEX_ROOT:[MF] for Metafont files, TEX_ROOT:[EXE] for executables, etc. and everything was logically arranged. CLD files were another wonderful thing where you could define your CLI interface in an external file and let the OS handle argument and option parsing for you.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
> I rather liked VMS conventions as it was immediately obvious what was the directory part of the path and what was the filename and the device. 1. unix doesn't expose devices in the file tree, and thank the [deity] for that 2. directory part: everything to the last / 3. filename: everything afte the last / 4. TEX_ROOT=/foo/bar; cd $TEX_ROOT/MF Could it be any easier?
- MereInterest 4y ago
  > unix doesn't expose devices in the file tree I mean, they are exposed as files (e.g. /dev/sda) within the file tree, but they aren’t exposed by a file path.
- eska 4y ago
  Maybe parent is talking about the fact that you don’t know whether bar in foo/bar is a file or a directory?
- dhosek 4y ago
  On 2 & 3, what if you have a directory? There’s no easy way to tell whether /foo/bar is a directory or a file. FOO:[BAR] must be a directory. I have a vague notion that there might have been the ability to have a virtual device span multiple directories, but as I think about it, this seems unlikely since it would make it ambiguous where something would be created if a directory exists in both root1 and root2, so perhaps not. It’s been 23 years since I last used VMS and 30 since it was my daily driver though, so it’s hard for me to say too much.

jlg23 4y ago

Clunky? Version control built in, distributed FS built in...

Athas 4y ago
The downside of building in stuff is that you can't easily replace it. I don't have any VMS experience, but the versioned file systems I've studied are very far from being a replacement for what I would consider version control today. They're more like the automatic writing of backup files in Emacs. Distributed FS sounds like something with a huge design space. It's better to do that in userspace. Was Plan 9 really the first time virtual file systems could be implemented in userspace? It seems like such an obviously useful idea in retrospect.
chasil 4y ago
The diff3 utility for 3-way merge appeared after the VMS debut (1979). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff3 Can you really call what we see in VMS full revision control when it lacks this capability?