Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!SRI-IU.ARPA!PKARP
From: PKARP@SRI-IU.ARPA (Peter Karp)
Newsgroups: mod.computers.vax
Subject: Re:  Re: sleep() & VMS vs. Unix
Message-ID: <VAX-MM(194)+TOPSLIB(120)+PONY(0).6-Jul-86.23:07:30.SRI-IU.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 7-Jul-86 02:07:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: <VAX-MM(194)+TOPSLIB(120)+PONY(0).6-Jul-86.23:07:30.SRI-IU.ARPA>
Posted: Mon Jul  7 02:07:30 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 7-Jul-86 19:32:38 EDT
References: <bogstad@hopkins-eecs-bravo.ARPA>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 15
Approved: info-vax@sri-kl.arpa

I agree in principle that VMS system calls are much too complex,
particularly in comparison with Unix system calls.  You picked an
unfortunate example and I think people jumped on you for the hell
of it without giving the principle itself the thought it deserved.
Figuring out how to use a new VMS system call is like pulling teeth;
on Unix it's usually cake.

This is not to say that I "prefer Unix to VMS".  Both have lots of
different strengths and weaknesses.  I happen to think that VMS
plus Eunice is a nice combination since you can pick and choose the
strenghts of either (or both) to solve a particular problem.

Peter Karp
PKarp@Sri-IU.Arpa
-------