Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amdcad!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mrvax!ddb
From: ddb@mrvax.DEC (DAVID DYER-BENNET MRO1-2/L14 DTN 231-4076)
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: RMS considered harmfull...
Message-ID: <623@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Feb-85 13:43:32 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.623
Posted: Mon Feb 18 13:43:32 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Feb-85 22:45:32 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 25

>I don't quite understand (nor do I know what this discussion is doing in
>net.arch).  Why should every program need to understand indexed files?
>All you need to do is pipe the output of the indexed-file reader into the
>other program.
When I open a file for sequential access in a program, I don't want to have
to think about whether the program could also be accessed some other way.
With RMS, I don't need to.  With less-integrated systems, I do.
When I TYPE a file, I don't want to have to think about what other modes
of access might or might not work for that file; I shouldn't have to
remember that the file is indexed, remember the name of the un-indexer, and
construct a command line to pipe the file through the un-indexer.

Now, I STILL don't like RMS; but a standardized file-system interface
is very convenient, it's just some of the particular implementation 
choices that I object to.

>What, you say you don't have pipes in VMS?  Maybe you'd better put them
>into RMS. :-)
>-- 
>In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 4251)
Actually, pipes should probably be done as a device driver for a
virtual device.  I imagine it's been done many times.  

		-- David Dyer-Bennet
		-- ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mrvax!ddb