Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!styx!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!rca.com!DCOTTLER
From: DCOTTLER@rca.com (Dan Cottler)
Newsgroups: mod.computers.vax
Subject: RE: Shorter alternate to STOP/FORCE
Message-ID: <8612021002.AA14541@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Mon, 1-Dec-86 08:05:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8612021002.AA14541
Posted: Mon Dec  1 08:05:00 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 2-Dec-86 08:16:26 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 23
Approved: info-vax@sri-kl.arpa

>I don't know what you did to make your version of a program to force exits
>of other processes take thirty-odd blocks (unless you're counting the include
>files that DEC supplies in your count), but here's a C program that does
>basically the same thing (it doesn't use the CLI routines that yours does,
>but DOES let you specify processes by name) that only takes two blocks
>(actually, 766 characters):

Dear Mr. Carl%cithex.caltech.edu,

I'm one of the people that asked Mr. Synful%drycas.bitnet for a copy of his
program.  Yes, FORCE is larger than your code.  Both seem to run equally 
well.  But FORCE has something your code doesn't -- A reasonable VMS 
interface and DOCUMENTATION.

Given a choice, I'll take the code from Synful%drycas.bitnet everytime.
His code is much easier to read, much easier to use, and DOCUMENTED.


					- Dan Cottler
					  
					  or 
					  RCA Advanced Technology Laboratories
					  Moorestown, NJ