Xref: utzoo comp.os.vms:8833 comp.unix.wizards:11277
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!mirror!rayssd!raybed2!cvbnet2!aperez
From: aperez@cvbnet2.UUCP (Arturo Perez Ext.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: VMS vs. UNIX file system
Message-ID: <207@cvbnet2.UUCP>
Date: 20 Sep 88 21:04:38 GMT
References: <68855@sun.uucp>
Sender: postnews@cvbnet2.UUCP
Lines: 43

From article <68855@sun.uucp>, by guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris):
>> I disagree.  I much prefer VMS's variable-length-record text file format
>> to Unix's byte-stream.  Why?  Because the Unix byte stream uses perfectly
>> legitimate data as a record separator.  To make matters worse, the standard
>> C method for dealing with strings uses a *different* character as a string
>> terminator!  Unix has a lot of GREAT ideas in it, but this isn't one of them.
> 
> One file format UNIX happens to implement atop this abstraction is the "text
> file"; "text files" consist of "lines", which are sequences of bytes (not
> containing '\0' - some applications can't handle them, since it's the C string
> terminator) ending with '\n'.
> 
> Other file formats exist, such as executable images and archives, which are,
> respectively, the UNIX equivalents of images (and object files - object files
> and images use the same format) and library files.
> 
> However, UNIX doesn't come standard with any libraries that implement "record"
> files.  Such libraries are available from third-party vendors (e.g., C-ISAM),
> and I very much doubt that they use '\n' or any other particular byte value as
> a record separator.
> 

I'm curious.  I understand VMS's supposed need for the various file formats.
And although I disagree, that's DEC decision; let them live with it.  They just
want application designers to use the tools that DEC designed.  Maybe because
it makes their software easier to support.  I don't really know.  And I don't
really work with VMS often enough to really care.

But I do know from experience that the Unix file system is so straightforward
that ANYBODY can use it without having to worry about the millions of 
descriptors that are needed to set up an I/O request on RMS. 


What I'm curious about is the fact that I've never heard of any record
access libraries for Unix.  I know that I've written simpleminded record
access applications.  I'm sure other people have as well.  Is there anyone
actually selling record access libraries for the Unix community?  If not
why isn't anyone doing it?


Arturo Perez
ComputerVision, a division of Prime
primerd!cvbnet!aperez
The difference between genius and idiocy is that genius has its limits.