Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!ll-xn!oswald!jim
From: jim@oswald.UUCP (Jim Olsen)
Newsgroups: net.decus,net.unix,net.usenix
Subject: Re: Favorite operating systems query (UNIX vs VMS flaming!!!)
Message-ID: <140@oswald.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 9-Jul-86 19:49:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: oswald.140
Posted: Wed Jul  9 19:49:04 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jul-86 05:12:32 EDT
References: <486@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> <1000@ttrdc.UUCP> <873@rti-sel.UUCP> <1320@psivax.UUCP>
Reply-To: jim@oswald.UUCP (Jim Olsen)
Organization: home
Lines: 14
Xref: watmath net.decus:391 net.unix:8556 net.usenix:640

In article <1320@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>	Oh, *great*:-) How does the DCL parse the arguments for a user
>written application program?? I can't see how it can do this without
>some rather messy interface requirements.  This really sounds like a
>way to make user-written programs second class citizens on the system.
>I think the individual program is better qualified to analyse its own
>arguments, whay is really needed is a *standard* for this, like getopts(3)!

On the contrary, user-written programs under VMS are not second-class citizens
in this respect.  There is a fully documented facility for telling DCL how to
parse the command line.  This facility is used by system and user programs
alike.  As to whether it's better to have the program or the system parse the
command line, I think that's a matter of taste.  However, having the system
do the parsing makes it easier to encourage standardization.