From: marc.gr.vandyck@invalid.skynet.be   
      
   Arne Vajhøj formulated on Saturday :   
   > Context   
   > -------   
   >   
   > 1)   
   >   
   > My opinion is that DCL:   
   > * is fine for interactive use   
   > * is fine for small scripts (5-25 lines with at most a few lexical   
   >    functions, a few if statements and 'Pn' usage   
   > * is not up to expectations for writing large scripts aka   
   >    programming in DCL   
   >   
   > One can argue that DCL should not be used for programming, but fact   
   > is that it is used that way.   
   >   
   > So what is missing for programming? I would say biggest   
   > items are:   
   > * loops   
   > * switch/case   
   > * arrays   
   > * user defined lexicals   
   >   
      
   I have been working on very long and complex DCL procedures in the past   
   (not anymore since I'm retired) and to be honest, have never been   
   bothered by the lack of specific loop, case, or array constructs. All   
   of that can be pretty well implemented with the DCL structures existing   
   today, and can be made perfectly readable if you make the effort to   
   write your DCL code and document it clearly.   
      
   User written lexical functions, on the other hand, would be a real   
   bonus. There are, for one, still many parts of the operating system   
   for which you need to get information, and the only possible way to do   
   it is to parse some output (think of everything TCP/IP, for example),   
   while there is a callable interface available to get the info properly.   
      
      
   --   
   Marc Van Dyck   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)